A Critical Examination of Enablers and Constraints of Employee Involvement in a Unionised Canadian Higher Education Environment Author Somwaru, Indira Published 2018-04 Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate) School Dept Empl Rel & Human Resource DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/805 Copyright Statement The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/382718 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au
325
Embed
A Critical Examination of Enablers and Constraints of ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
A Critical Examination of Enablers and Constraints ofEmployee Involvement in a Unionised Canadian HigherEducation Environment
Author
Somwaru, Indira
Published
2018-04
Thesis Type
Thesis (PhD Doctorate)
School
Dept Empl Rel & Human Resource
DOI
https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/805
Copyright Statement
The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise.
Downloaded from
http://hdl.handle.net/10072/382718
Griffith Research Online
https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au
A Critical Examination of Enablers and Constraints of Employee Involvement in a
Unionised Canadian Higher Education Environment
Indira Somwaru B.A., B.Ed., MBA
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Research School Department of Employment Relations
and Human Resources Griffith University
Nathan, QLD, Australia
April 2018
2
ABSTRACT
The overall purpose of this research is to study the factors that account for the success and
failure of employee involvement initiatives with respect to unionised faculty in higher
education institutions. Typically, research in High Involvement Work Systems (HIWS) has
focused on manufacturing and nonacademic, nonunion service industries. The study sought
to fill in the gap in the research on the prevalence of, and requirements for, successful
implementation of employee involvement initiatives in unionised, higher education,
academic environments. Unlike many existing studies on HIWS that have mainly focused
on examining the central research question from either a management or a union
perspective, this study examines the faculty perspective with a view to better understanding
the factors that promote and constrain faculty’s involvement in their jobs and in the broader
organisation. The results could provide key input into policy decisions and into the design
of practical interventions that could serve to promote the adoption of HIWS in higher
education institutions. Accordingly, the central research question is “What are the factors
that account for the success and failure of employee involvement initiatives with respect to
faculty in unionised organisations in higher education?”
The study was conducted in a large community college in Toronto, Canada, among
unionised faculty across a broad range of disciplines.For the purposes of this study, a
synthesised employee involvement construct was developed from existing models and
theories.This construct was the basis for the design of the initial interviews that formed the
basis of the qualitative study portion of this research project as well as for the quantitative
survey portion that followed up on the results of the initial interviews.In the qualitative
study, a semi-structured interview questionnaire was developed and used to interview 22
faculty members across 6 major departments of the college who were selected by a
purposive sampling technique.Data from the interviews were analysed using themes and
content analysis and the results were then used to design a survey to explore in more depth
the key themes that were identified.The survey comprised 54 questions divided into 8
sections. These questions served to provide a comprehensive understanding of participants’
attitudes using a 5-point Likert scale.The data wereanalysed using SPSS, and descriptive
3
statistics, frequencies, and visual charts were produced to analyse each variable within the
sample.
From a theory perspective, the results of the study support the current knowledge on the
factors that promote and constrain employee involvement generally across a variety of
organisations in keeping with current models of involvement, but also extend the literature
by identifying additional factors that apply to white-collar, unionised, higher education
institutions.These factors include the need for more intrinsic rather than extrinsic rewards,
the need for managers to use supportive rather than directive approaches to management,
and the importance of using small team-based work groups for information-sharing and
problem-solving. Key factors constraining faculty involvement include the existence of a
collective agreement that limits faculty autonomy and top-down decision-making and
communication channels used by management.
This study also has implications for practice regarding creating a high-involvement culture
for faculty in higher education institutions. Key among these are ensuring that recruitment
and selection procedures identify managers who have the requisite skills and personalities
required for supportive management and training managers in the application of these
management techniques. Developmental opportunities for faculty in higher education
pursuits would serve to provide them with intrinsic rewards. In addition, such
opportunitiess would fulfil the objectives of higher education institutions in upgrading the
credentials and skills of their faculty to meet government requirements and the competitive
challenges facing these organisations. Training for managers, faculty, and union stewards
in change management processes is another key requirement for the successful
implementation of employee involvement initiatives in the higher education environment.
4
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract2
Statement of originality4
List of tables11
List of figures15
Acknowledgements16
Glossary of terms17
Chapter One: Introduction19
1.1 Background and Context of the Research19
1.2 Facing the Challenges: The Case for Greater Faculty Involvement 22
1.3 Researcher Expertise and Interest25
1.4 Focus of This Study and Research Questions26
1.5 Research Methodology 27
1.6 Outline of Thesis 28
1.7 Conclusion29
Chapter Two: Literature Review30
2.1 Definition and Scope of Employee Involvement Programmes30
2.2 Rationale for Adopting Employee Involvement Programmes37
2.3 The Union View of Employee Involvement Programmes40
2.3.1 Benefits of Employee Involvement Programmes41
2.3.2 Evolution of Labour-Management Relations to the 1950s42
2.3.3 Socio-Technical Systems Theory48
2.3.4 Quality of Working Life Movement49
2.3.5 High-Involvement Systems and Trade Unionism53
2.4 The Role of Commitment in the Success of Employee Involvement Initiatives58
2.5 The Role of the Manager in Promoting Employee Involvement62
2.6 Employee Involvement in the Educational Sector67
Chapter Three: Methodology74
3.1 Research Methods74
3.1.1 Research Design74
6
3.1.2 Case Study Research75
3.1.3 Qualitative Research76
3.1.4 Quantitative Research77
3.2 Mixed Methods Research Design Methodology78
3.3 Qualitative Study79
3.3.1 Data Collection Method79
3.3.2 Interview Guide Design80
3.3.3 Sampling Design81
3.3.4 Data Analysis84
3.4 Quantitative Study85
3.4.1 Data Collection Method85
3.4.2 Survey Design85
3.4.3 Sampling Design87
3.4.4 Data Analysis89
3.5 Addressing the Central Research Question89
3.6 Limitations of the Case Study Methodology90
3.7 Insider Research: Considerations92
3.8 Ethical Considerations93
3.9 Conclusion93
Chapter Four: The Case Study Organisation95
4.1 Institutional Context95
4.1.1 History and Growth95
4.1.2 The Faculty96
4.1.3 Union-Management Relations and Culture96
4.2 Mission, Vision, and Goals97
4.2.1 Mission and Vision97
4.2.2 Planning Context for Developing Strategic Goals 98
4.2.3 Strategic Goals99
4.3 Human Resources Initiatives100
4.3.1 Planned Initiatives100
4.3.2 Past and Current Employee Development Initiatives and Rewards100
7
4.4 Organisational Measures to Improve Performance and Results104
4.4.1 Key Performance Indicator Survey104
4.4.2 Employee Satisfaction Survey105
4.4.3 Survey Action Plan107
4.5 Summary of Challenges and Success Factors Related to Employee Involvement108
4.5.1 Organisational Challenges Related to Improving Employee
Involvement108
4.5.2 Organisational Success Factors in Promoting Employee Involvement110
4.6 Conclusion110
Chapter Five: Research Findings (Qualitative)112
5.1 Work Practices114
5.1.1 Autonomy114
5.1.2 Accountability115
5.1.3 Problem-Solving Opportunities116
5.1.4 Communication117
5.1.5 Contribution to Organisational Goals and Development118
5.1.6 Impact of the Workload and Work-Life Balance119
5.2 Resources (Financial and Training and Development)120
5.3 Management Style and Consultation with Faculty121
5.4 Rewards122
5.5 Organisation Structure, Strategies, and Policies124
5.6 Conclusion125
Chapter Six: Research Findings (Quantitative)126
6.1 Background128
6.1.1 Demographics129
6.1.2 Education133
6.1.3 Employment Status and Work Experience135
6.1.4 Union Membership138
6.1.5 Reliability Testing140
6.2 Work Processes and Practices141
6.2.1 Autonomy141
8
6.2.2 Impact of Workload142
6.2.3 Work-Life Balance 145
6.2.4 Opportunities to Contribute to Organisation’s Goals145
6.2.5 Problem-Solving Opportunities148
6.3 Training and Development149
6.3.1 Formal Training Received at Firm 153
6.3.2 Perceived Effectiveness of Formal Training154
6.3.3 Constraints on Receiving Adequate Training155
6.4 Management Style156
6.5 Reward Systems 170
6.6 Union and Employee Involvement174
6.7 Organisational Values, Systems, and Policies 181
6.8 Responses to Thesis Subquestions182
6.8.1 What Are Faculty Perceptions of the Benefits of Employee Involvement
Initiatives?182
6.8.2 Can High Involvement And Unionism Coexist in the Context of Higher
Education?184
6.8.3 Do Individual Differences in Faculty Demographics Have an Impact on
Faculty Perception of the Value of Employee Involvement and Desire to
Become More Involved?186
6.9 Discussion of Findings189
6.9.1 Autonomy190
6.9.2 Impact of Workload190
6.9.3 Work-Life Balance 190
6.9.4 Opportunities to Contribute to Organisational Goals190
6.9.5 Problem-Solving Opportunities191
6.9.6 Training and Development191
6.9.7 Management Style191
6.9.8 Reward Systems191
6.9.9 Union and Employee Involvement192
6.9.10 Organisational Values, Systems, and Policies192
9
6.10 Conclusion193
Chapter Seven: Discussion194
7.1 Summary of the Study194
7.2 Central Research Question: Results and Conclusions195
7.2.1 Theme: Work Practices196
7.2.2 Theme: Training and Development205
7.2.3 Theme: Management Style207
7.2.4 Theme: Rewards211
7.2.5 Theme: Organisational Structure, Strategies, and Policies213
7.2.6 Conclusions215
7.3 Research Subquestion 1: Results and Conclusions217
7.3.1 Better-Quality Education217
7.3.2 Opportunity for Personal Growth and Increased Self-Esteem218
7.3.3 Professors With More Current Knowledge219
7.3.4 Increased Job Satisfaction, Commitment, and Organisational
Citizenship220
7.3.5 Increased Productivity and Innovation221
7.4 Research Subquestion 2: Results and Conclusions222
7.5 Research Subquestion 3: Results and Conclusions227
7.5.1 Gender 227
7.5.2 Age, Years in the Organisation, and Union Membership228
7.5.3 Teaching Experience230
7.5.4 Qualifications230
7.5.5 Ethnicity231
7.6 Conclusion231
Chapter Eight: Conclusions232
8.1 Research Results and Conclusions234
8.1.1 Results and Conclusions for Central Research234
8.1.2 Results and Conclusions for Research Subquestion236
8.1.3 Results and Conclusions for Research Subquestion 237
8.1.4 Results for Research Subquestion 3239
10
8.2 Implications for Theory240
8.3 Implications for Policy and Practice 243
8.4 Limitations246
8.5 Directions for Future Research247
8.6 Contribution Statement 268
Appendix A: Letter of Information Used to Solicit Research Participants 270
Appendix B: Consent Form Used in Interviews with Research Participants274
Appendix C: Interview Script 277
Appendix D: Employee Involvement Survey 282
Appendix E: Scatter-Plot of the residual terms vs. the predicted values 305
Appendix F: Multi-co linearity among independent variables 306
Bibliography 307
11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Major Models of Employee Involvement 36
Table 2: QWL Policies and Programmes That Satisfy Employee Needs in Work Life 51
Table 3: Methodology Timeline 79
Table 4: Employee Involvement Construct 80
Table 5: Participant Demographic Data – Qualitative Study 83
Table 6: Participant Demographic Data – Quantitative Study 88
Table 7: Interviewee Profiles 113
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for the 10 Demographic and Organisational Variables from the
Sample 127
Table 9: Frequency Table for Gender 130
Table 10: Frequency Table for Age 131
Table 11: Frequency Table for Ethnicity 132
Table 12: Frequency Table for Highest Qualification of Participants 133
Table 13: Frequency Table for Ongoing Degrees of Participants 134
Table 14: Frequency Table for Time Spent at the Organisation 135
Table 15: Frequency Table for Total Teaching Experience 136
Table 16: Frequency Table for Employment Status 137
Table 17: Frequency Table for Current Union Membership 138
Table 18: Frequency Table for Years in Union 139
Table 19: Cronbach’s α Test (All Variables) 140
Table 20: Cronbach’s α Test (Questionnaire Portion of Survey) 140
Table 21: Descriptive Statistics for Question 20: What are the three most significant factors that
serve to limit autonomy in your job? 141
Table 22: Frequency Table for Question 20: What are the three most significant factors which
serve to limit autonomy in your job? 142
Table 23: Descriptive Statistics for Statements on Workload 143
Table 24: Frequency Table for Statements on Workload 144
Table 25: Descriptive Statistics for Ranking of Stress-Related Factors 144
Table 26: Frequency Table for Ranking of Stress-Related Factors 145
Table 27: Descriptive Statistics for Questions Pertaining to Job Contributions 146
12
Table 28: Frequency Tables for Questions Pertaining to Job Contributions 147
Table 29: Descriptive Statistics for Questions Pertaining to Problem-Solving 148
Table 30: Frequency Tables for Questions Pertaining to Problem-Solving 149
Table 31: Cronbach’s α for Questions Pertaining to Training and Development 150
Table 32: Descriptive Statistics for Questions Related to Training, Personal Growth, and
Professional Development 151
Table 33: Frequency Tables for Questions Pertaining to Training, Personal Growth, and
Professional Development 152
Table 34: Training and Development Ranked in Order of Importance in Terms of its
Effectiveness in Increasing Respondents’ Desires to Contribute Above and Beyond Their
Job Requirements 153
Table 35: Descriptive Statistics for Responses Related to Receiving Training at the Firm 153
Table 36: Frequencies Related to Whether Participants Received Training on the Job 154
Table 37: Descriptive Statistics for Questions Related to Perceived Effectiveness of Formal
Training 154
Table 38: Frequency of Questions Related to Perceived Effectiveness of Formal Training 155
Table 39: Descriptive Statistics for Constraints on Receiving Adequate Training 155
Table 40: Respondents’ Ranking of Constraints on Receiving Adequate Training 156
Table 41: Cronbach’s α for Survey Questions Pertaining to Management Style 156
Table 42: Descriptive Statistics for Level of Influence of Lower-, Middle-, and Upper-Level
Management on Employees 157
Table 43: Frequency Table for Level of Influence of Lower-, Middle-, and Upper-Level
Management on Employees 158
Table 44: Descriptive Statistics for Management Impact on Employee Involvement 158
Table 45: Frequency Table for Management Impact on Employee Involvement 159
Table 46: Descriptive Statistics for Level of Importance of Behaviours Considered Critical
Requirements of a Successful Chair 160
Table 47: Frequency Table for Level of Importance of Behaviours Considered Critical
Requirements of a Successful Chair 161
13
Table 48: Descriptive Statistics for Ranking of Factors Which May Cause Mid- and Lower-Level
Management Resistance to the Implementation of Employee Involvement Programmes
162
Table 49: Frequency Table for Ranking of Factors Which May Cause Mid- and Lower-Level
Management Resistance to the Implementation of Employee Involvement Programmes
162
Table 50: Descriptive Statistics for Ranking of Attributes Considered Critical for First-Line
Managers in High-Involvement Workplaces 163
Table 51: Frequency Table for Ranking of Attributes Considered Critical for First-Line
Managers in High-Involvement Workplaces 164
Table 52: Descriptive Statistics for Level of Agreement Associated with Managerial Integrity
164
Table 53: Frequency Table for Level of Agreement Associated with Managerial Integrity 165
Table 54: Frequency Table for Level of Performance Feedback Provided by Manager 166
Table 55: Descriptive Statistics for Questions Related to Management Receptiveness 167
Table 56: Frequency Table for Questions Related to Management Receptiveness 168
Table 57: Descriptive Statistics for Management Ability to Promote Employee Involvement
169
Table 58: Frequency Table for Management Ability to Promote Employee Involvement 170
Table 59: Descriptive Statistics for Questions Related to Reward Systems 171
Table 60: Frequency Tables for Questions Related to Reward Systems 172
Table 61: Descriptive Statistics for Rewards Ranked in Terms of Effectiveness in Increasing
Desire to Contribute Above and Beyond Job Requirements 173
Table 62: Frequency Table for Rewards Ranked in Terms of Effectiveness in Increasing Desire
to Contribute Above and Beyond Job Requirements 173
Table 63: Cronbach’s α for Questions Related to Union and Employee Involvement 174
Table 64: Descriptive Statistics for Attitudes Towards Union and Employee Involvement 175
Table 65: Frequency Table for Attitudes Towards Union and Employee Involvement 176
Table 66: Descriptive Statistics for Participation in Union-Sponsored Activities 177
Table 67: Frequency Table for Participation in Union-Sponsored Activities: Please indicate the
extent to which you participate in union sponsored activities 177
14
Table 68: Descriptive Statistics for Extent to Which Respondents Go Above and Beyond Job
Requirements 177
Table 69: Frequency Table for Extent to Which Respondents Go Above and Beyond Job
Requirements 177
Table 70: Descriptive Statistics for Opinion Towards Employee Involvement Culture and Its
Influence on Employee Level of Participation 178
Table 71: Frequency Table for Opinion Towards Employee Involvement Culture and Its
Influence on Employee Level of Participation 178
Table 72: Descriptive Statistics for Union and Employee Involvement 179
Table 73: Frequency Table for Union and Employee Involvement 179
Table 74: Descriptive Statistics for the Top Three Most Significant Factors Limiting Interest In
Employee Involvement Initiatives 180
Table 75: Frequency Table for the Top Three Most Significant Factors Limiting Interest in
Employee Involvement Initiatives 180
Table 76: Descriptive Statistics for Questions Related to Attitude Towards Organisational
Values, Systems, and Policies 181
Table 77: Frequency Table for Questions Related to Attitude Towards Organisational Values,
Systems, and Policies 182
Table 78: Employee Involvement Benefits 183
Table 79: Ranked Drivers of Adoption of Employee Involvement Initiatives 184
Table 80: Coexistence of High Involvement and Union 185
Table 81: Years in Organisation and Employee Involvement 187
Table 82: Total Teaching Experience and Employee Involvement 187
Table 83: Years in Union and Employee Involvement 188
Table 84: Age and Employee Involvement 189
Table 85: Construct Validity: Involvement Work Practice 205
Table 86: Internal Validity: Involvement Work Practice206
Table 87: Normality Test: Involvement Work Practice206
Table 88: Correlation matrix of variables in this study 210
Middle management is perceived as having the highest level of influence in the workplace
(Table 43).
Table 44
Descriptive Statistics for Management Impact on Employee Involvement
A B C D E F
N Valid 175 175 175 175 175 175
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 3.88 4.10 3.92 3.95 4.07 3.22
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00
Mode 4 4 4 3 3 3
Skewness 1.492 1.276 2.052 1.736 1.665 2.052
Std. Error of Skewness .184 .184 .184 .184 .184 .184
Kurtosis 8.710 10.406 6.357 2.223 1.815 4.755
Std. Error of Kurtosis .365 .365 .365 .365 .365 .365
While participants support the statements that it is important for top management to be
involved, they seemed to neither agree or disagree with the causal statements (D, E, and F
157
in Table 45). They mostly agreed that managers see themselves mostly as administrators
and not as facilitators of employee involvement.
Table 45
Frequency Table for Management Impact on Employee Involvement: Please
indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statements below (%)
Stro
ngly
dis
agre
e
Mos
tly d
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or
disa
gree
Mos
tly a
gree
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
Do n
ot k
now
/ N
ot
rele
vant
A Top management attitudes and behaviours are most important in establishing a participative climate for faculty
0.6 8.6 14.9 61.1 13.1 1.7
B The attitudes and behaviours of department chairs are most important in establishing a participative climate for faculty
0.0 1.7 12.0 62.9 22.9 0.6
C Management sees its role as primarily administrative rather than as participants in fostering employee involvement
0.6 8.0 25.1 49.7 12.0 4.6
D Management believes that faculty have the skills and knowledge necessary to improve organisational performance through employee involvement practices
1.1 13.1 36.6 33.7 4.0 11.4
E Management would be receptive to the implementation of employee involvement practices
1.1 9.7 37.7 34.3 4.6 12.6
F There is a high degree of trust between management and faculty
8.0 24.6 40.6 16.6 4.0 6.3
158
Table 46
Descriptive Statistics for Level of Importance of Behaviours Considered Critical
Requirements of a Successful Chair
A B C D E F G H I
N Valid 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 175
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 4.35 3.99 4.30 4.47 4.28 3.98 4.65 4.19 8.13
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 9.00
Frequency Table for Attitudes Towards Union and Employee Involvement: Please
indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statements below (Union
Members Only) (%)
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Mos
tly d
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee
nor d
isag
ree
Mos
tly a
gree
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
Do n
ot k
now
/
Not
rele
vant
A I feel a sense of pride in being a part of the union 6.3 8.0 39.4 37.1 2.3 6.9
B I feel that union and management work effectively to solve the organisation’s problems
4.6 27.4 33.7 22.3 0.6 11.4
C The organisation would be in favour of imple-menting employee involvement programmes
1.1 13.7 28.6 30.9 0.6 25.1
D The union would be in favour of implementing employee involvement programmes
3.4 16.6 29.7 24.6 0.6 25.1
E The organisation would only implement an employee involvement programme with the consent of its union
0.0 9.7 32.6 29.7 4.6 23.4
F The organisation would use an employee involvement programme to weaken the union
8.6 17.1 34.9 20.6 0.6 18.3
G My loyalty is to my work, not the union 1.1 15.4 31.4 34.3 10.9 6.9
H My values and the union’s values are not very similar
3.4 22.9 34.3 22.9 5.7 10.9
I The issue of employee involvement is often discussed by the union
4.6 12.6 26.3 12.0 1.1 43.4
J The presence of an union will not affect the success of an employee involvement programme
2.3 14.3 34.3 23.4 3.4 22.3
K The union would help the company to implement an employee involvement programme
4.0 11.4 35.4 21.1 1.7 26.3
L Very little of what the membership wants is important to the union
1.7 36.6 31.4 11.4 1.7 17.1
There is a large central tendency bias for this line of questions (Table 65), indicating that
perhaps unions and employee involvement are sensitive issues for union members. The
participants do feel, however, that the membership needs and union activities are aligned.
175
At the same time, they mostly agree that their loyalty lies with their work and not the union,
and that the organisation would welcome an employee involvement programme.
Table 66
Descriptive Statistics for Participation
in Union-Sponsored Activities (Union
Members Only)
N Valid 175
Missing 0
Mean 2.48
Median 3.00
Mode 2
Skewness -.394
Std. Error of Skewness .184
Kurtosis -.556
Std. Error of Kurtosis .365
Table 67
Frequency Table for Participation in
Union-Sponsored Activities: Please
indicate the extent to which you
participate in union sponsored
activities (Union Members Only) (%)
%
Frequently 6.9
Occasionally 11.4
Rarely 31.4
Not at all 27.4
N/A 22.9
As shown in Table 67, participants perceive their unions as mostly not sponsoring activities
for their constituents.
Table 68
Descriptive Statistics for Extent to
Which Respondents Go Above and
Beyond Job Requirements
N Valid 175
Missing 0 Mean 2.36 Median 2.00 Mode 2 Skewness .057
Std. Error of Skewness .184 Kurtosis -.191 Std. Error of Kurtosis .365
Table 69
Frequency Table for Extent to Which Respondents Go Above and Beyond
Job Requirements: Please indicate the extent to which you go above and
beyond the requirements of your job (%)
%
Frequently 14.9
Occasionally 41.1
Rarely 30.9
Not at all 10.9
N/A 2.3
176
The majority of respondents indicated that they occasionally go above and beyond job
requirements (Table 69).
Table 70
Descriptive Statistics for Opinion Towards Employee
Involvement Culture and Its Influence on Employee
Level of Participation
A B C
N Valid 175 175 175
Missing 0 0 0
Mean 1.72 1.78 1.45
Median 2.00 2.00 1.00
Mode 2 2 1
Skewness -.988 -1.343 .220
Std. Error of Skewness .184 .184 .184
Kurtosis -1.035 -.198 -1.974
Std. Error of Kurtosis .365 .365 .365
Table 71
Frequency Table for Opinion Towards Employee Involvement Culture and Its
Influence on Employee Level of Participation: Circle the number(s) corresponding
to the statement which best describes your views (%)
Yes No
A An employee involvement culture would serve to increase my interest in job related activities (e.g. attendance at team meetings)
28 72
B An employee involvement culture would serve to increase my interest in college-related activities beyond job requirements (e.g., attending graduation ceremonies)
22.3 77.7
C An employee involvement culture would make no difference in my level of participation
55.4 44.6
As Table 71 shows, while most participants agreed that employee involvement would not
change their level of engagement for specific duties like job-related activities or college-
177
related activities beyond the job, about half seem to think it would make some difference
in their participation overall.
Table 72
Descriptive Statistics for Union and Employee Involvement
Frequency Table for Union and Employee Involvement: Please indicate how much
you agree or disagree with the statements below. (%)
Stro
ngly
dis
agre
e
Mos
tly d
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee n
or
disa
gree
Mos
tly a
gree
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
Do n
ot k
now
/ N
ot
sele
cted
A Introducing employee involvement initiatives
would serve to weaken union-member relations 21.7 13.1 16.0 7.4 0.0 41.7
B Introducing employee involvement initiatives would serve to weaken the union’s influence on how work gets done 21.7 13.1 15.4 8.0 0.0 41.7
C Introducing employee involvement initiatives would have no significant impact on current union-member relationships 7.4 16.0 24.0 9.7 1.1 41.7
D Introducing employee involvement initiatives would have no significant impact on the union’s influence on how work gets done 6.9 17.1 25.7 8.6 1.1 40.6
178
Participants seemed to strongly disagree with the potential for employee involvement
programmes and union initiatives to clash, either by weakening the union or influencing
how work gets done. However, they neither agreed nor disagreed that this change would
have no impact (Table 73).
Table 74
Descriptive Statistics for the Top Three Most Significant Factors
Limiting Interest In Employee Involvement Initiatives
1 2 3 4 5
N Valid 175 175 175 175 175
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Mean .31 .26 .46 .56 .52
Median .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Mode 0 0 0 0 0
Skewness 2.409 3.575 2.543 1.751 2.125
Std. Error of Skewness .184 .184 .184 .184 .184
Kurtosis 9.253 11.861 5.985 1.868 3.352
Std. Error of Kurtosis .365 .365 .365 .365 .365
Table 75
Frequency Table for the Top Three Most Significant Factors Limiting Interest in
Employee Involvement Initiatives: What are the three most significant factors which
would limit your interest in employee involvement initiatives? (%)
K Opportunity for personal growth 5.8 7.5 15.6 54.9 16.2 4.00
L Increased feelings of friendship with co-workers 3.5 10.5 37.2 36.6 12.2 3.00
M Improved communication with management 5.8 11.1 29.8 40.4 12.9 4.00
N More authority and responsibility 4.7 9.9 26.3 45.0 14.0 4.00
182
Almost 50% of respondents ranked increased competition for students as a significant
driver for the organisation to adopt employee involvement initiatives. Ability of the
organisation to generate funding and student desire for more innovative teaching were
ranked second by approximately 32% and 29% respectively (Table 79).
Table 79
Ranked Drivers of Adoption of Employee Involvement Initiatives: Rank the factors
below in terms of their significance as a driver for the organisation in adopting
employee involvement initiatives
1 2 3 4 5
A Increased competition for students 49.1 15.2 17.5 5.3 12.9
B Student desire for more innovative teaching 11.8 28.8 30.0 17.1 12.4
C Availability of technology to support innovation 10.1 13.6 18.3 42.6 15.4
D Faculty desire for a more involved workplace 17.2 12.4 23.7 19.5 27.2
E Ability of the organisation to generate funding 11.1 32.2 14.6 12.3 29.8
6.8.2 Can High Involvement And Unionism Coexist in the Context of Higher
Education?
Table 80 describes the ways in which faculty see the relationship between high
involvement and unionism. A majority of respondents either “strongly disagree” or “mostly
disagree” that introducing employee involvement initiatives would serve to weaken union-
member relations and weaken the union’s influence on how work gets done. Moreover,
61.8% of respondents feel that if employee involvement initiatives are implemented in the
organisation, the union should cooperate with management in implementing these
initiatives.
Approximately 45% of respondents either “mostly agree” or “strongly agree” that the
organisation would only implement an employee involvement programme with the consent
183
of its union. It is noteworthy that a large proportion of respondents (between approximately
40% and 48%) seem to “neither agree nor disagree” with most of the statements in Table
80 on the relationship between union and employee involvement.
Table 80
Coexistence of High Involvement and Union: Please indicate how much you agree or
disagree with the statements below
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Mos
tly
disa
gree
Nei
ther
ag
ree
nor
disa
gree
Mos
tly a
gree
Stro
ngly
ag
ree
Med
ian
The union would be in favour of implementing employee involvement programmes 4.6 22.1 39.7 32.8 0.8 3.00
The organisation would only implement an employee involvement programme with the consent of its union 0.0 12.7 42.5 38.8 6.0 3.00
The organisation would use an employee involvement programme to weaken the union 10.5 21.0 42.7 25.2 0.7 3.00
The issue of employee involvement is often discussed by the union 8.1 22.2 46.5 21.2 2.0 3.00
The presence of an union will not affect the success of an employee involvement programme 2.9 18.4 44.1 30.1 4.4 3.00
The union would help the company to implement an employee involvement programme 5.4 15.5 48.1 28.7 2.3 3.00
Introducing employee involvement initiatives would serve to weaken union member relations 37.3 22.5 27.5 12.7 0.0 2.00
Introducing employee involvement initiatives would serve to weaken the union’s influence on how work gets done 37.3 22.5 26.5 13.7 0.0 2.00
Introducing employee involvement initiatives would have no significant impact on current union-member relationships 12.7 27.5 41.2 16.7 2.0 3.00
184
Introducing employee involvement initiatives would have no significant impact on the union’s influence on how work gets done 11.5 28.8 43.3 14.4 1.9 3.00
6.8.3 Do Individual Differences in Faculty Demographics Have an Impact on
Faculty Perception of the Value of Employee Involvement and Desire to Become
More Involved?
Demographic information collected from respondents (survey questions 1 through 10)
were cross-tabulated against the following two survey questions, in attempt to understand
if demographic differences have an impact on respondents’ desires to become more
involved: I would be interested in the introduction of employee involvement initiatives in
this organisation and an employee involvement culture would make no difference in my
level of participation.Results from this analysis are discussed in the following paragraphs
and Tables 80 through 83.
Gender. Approximately 74% of males said they would be interested in the introduction
of employee involvement initiatives. A comparable proportion of females (approximately
71%) indicated the same. On the question of whether an employee involvement culture
would make no difference to respondents’ level of participation, approximately 54% of
males and 60% of females agreed.
Years in organisation.As illustrated in Table 81, interest in employee involvement, in
general, declines with increased years in the organisation. A minor exception to this trend
is the 6- to 10-year category which shows slightly higher interest in the implementation
of employee involvement than the 1- to 5-year category.
185
Table 81
Years in Organisation and Employee Involvement
I would be interested in the introduction of employee involvement initiatives in this organisation
An employee involvement culture would make no difference in my level of participation
Yes No Yes No
<1 year 100.0% 0.0% 15.4% 84.6%
1–5 years 80.6% 19.4% 58.1% 41.9%
6–10 years 86.2% 13.8% 46.4% 53.6%
11–20 years 79.5% 20.5% 54.1% 45.9%
>20 years 49.1% 50.9% 73.2% 26.8%
Total teaching experience. The response pattern seen in Table 82 (total teaching
experience) is comparable to that of Table 81 (years in organisation). There is a general
trend where interest in employee involvement decreases with increasing teaching
experience, with the exception of the 6- to 10-year category in relation to the 1- to 5-year
category.
Table 82
Total Teaching Experience and Employee Involvement
I would be interested in the introduction of employee involvement initiatives in this organisation
An employee involvement culture would make no difference in my level of participation
Yes No Yes No
<1 year 100.0% 0.0% 10.0% 90.0%
1–5 years 77.8% 22.2% 55.6% 44.4%
6–10 years 89.3% 10.7% 48.1% 51.9%
11–20 years 80.0% 20.0% 57.9% 42.1%
>20 years 53.1% 46.9% 68.3% 31.7%
186
Highest qualification. Of the respondents with a PhD or bachelor’s degree, 50–58%
indicated interest in the introduction of employee involvement initiatives in their
organisation. In contrast, 80–85% of respondents whose highest qualification is a master’s
degree or graduate certificate/diploma indicated interest.
Union membership. Of those who identified themselves as not being part of a union, all
(100%) indicated they were interested in the introduction of employee involvement
initiatives in their organisation. Of the remaining 113 respondents who were union
members, approximately 71% showed this interest. The proportion interested in the
introduction of employee involvement initiatives declines by half (100% to 49%) for those
in the union more than 20 years compared to those in the union less than one year (Table
83).
Table 83
Years in Union and Employee Involvement
I would be interested in the introduction of employee involvement initiatives in this organisation
An employee involvement culture would make no difference in my level of participation
Yes No Yes No
<1 year 100.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0%
1–5 years 80.0% 20.0% 56.7% 43.3%
6–10 years 80.6% 19.4% 54.8% 45.2%
11–20 years 85.7% 14.3% 51.6% 48.4%
>20 years 49.1% 50.9% 75.4% 24.6%
Age. Interest in the introduction of employee initiatives progressively declines the older
the respondent category as illustrated in Table 84.
187
Table 84
Age and Employee Involvement
I would be interested in the introduction of employee involvement initiatives in this organisation
Age group Yes No
25–29 92.3% 7.7%
30–39 84.4% 15.6%
40–49 83.3% 16.7%
50–59 63.5% 36.5%
60+ 59.1% 40.9%
Ethnicity. In terms of ethnicity and the level of interest in the introduction of employee
initiatives, South Asians showed the most interest with 95.5%, followed by “other”
ethnicities (not identified in the option category) with 93.8%, Latin Americans with 80%,
Chinese with 70%, Caucasians with 64.6% and Filipinos with 50%.
6.9 Discussion of Findings
This chapter has displayed an array of quantitative data derived from a questionnaire to
further probe the qualitative findings in the preceding chapter. While methodology will be
discussed in a subsequent chapter, it is important to note that the α reliability score was
derived only after the data were cleaned, which resulted in a high level of internal
reliability.
Overall, the survey attracted 175 respondents, split approximately evenly according to
gender, with 56.6% being female. In terms of age, 56% were above 50, and in terms of
ethnicity, the majority (54.9%) were Caucasian. Full-time employees represented 73.7%,
while 92% were unionised; 55.4% had a master’s degree, and 84.6% of respondents
indicated that they were not currently pursuing any ongoing degrees. Work experience and
job tenure showed a negatively skewed distribution, with most participants at the higher
end. These statistics provide an overview of the sample, which is highly specified and thus
suggests caution when generalising the results to larger groups. It can be confirmed,
188
however, that the distribution of gender and age is reflective of the overall higher education
population. Further implications of this sample will be discussed in Chapter 7.
Although this is not a correlational and causational study, the analysis of the quantitative
data has shown that the factors that promote and constrain employee involvement can be
measured and represented by various means of analysis such as frequencies and descriptive
statistics tables. A summary of each topic within the survey results is discussed below:
6.9.1 Autonomy
Participants cite their collective agreement and limited choices about subjects taught as the
most significant factors in limiting autonomy at 38.3% and 24.6% respectively.
Respondents blamed their limited autonomy on administrative, contractual, and
bureaucratic policies and structures.
6.9.2 Impact of Workload
While participants agreed that their workload is reasonable overall, with all results falling
into the “mostly agree” category, most chose to opt out of answering questions related to
causes of stress. Those who did respond seemed to align their responses with causes of
limitations on autonomy, citing bureaucratic reasons as the second top choice for stress at
6.3%, the first being resolving student issues at 6.9%.
6.9.3 Work-Life Balance
Participants mostly agreed (64%) that their jobs provide them with adequate work-life
balance.
6.9.4 Opportunities to Contribute to Organisational Goals
While the majority of respondents agreed not only that contributing beyond job
requirements is important but that they would actually want to increase their effort to this
end, most agreed that opportunities in the workplace to do so were lacking in relation to its
perceived importance, as reflected in the mean drop from importance at 3.45 to presence
at 2.62.
189
6.9.5 Problem-Solving Opportunities
A similar pattern can be seen with opportunities to problem-solve, with a large discrepancy
observed between perceived importance and perceived presence of this factor, reflected in
the mean drop from importance at 3.77 to presence at 2.80.
6.9.6 Training and Development
Most participants agreed that there is not enough training in relation to how important they
perceive it to be for their jobs, as reflected in the mean drop between importance with a
mean of 3.86 and presence with a mean of 3.03. This gap confirms the finding that 84.12%
of respondents confirmed that they were not provided with any form of training on the job.
Moreover, employees stated that training and development is desired as a contributing
function towards employee involvement and believed it would be mostly effective, with
higher means of 3.51 and 3.7 respectively. Time was cited as the number one inhibitor of
opportunities for training and development, with the largest number at 47.4% of
respondents ranking it first.
6.9.7 Management Style
While the largest number of employees (42.9%) perceives middle management as having
the highest level of influence in the workplace, 61.1% of participants felt that top
management, particularly, should be more involved in employee involvement strategies.
The overall impression of behaviours important for management focused on interpersonal
skills, ranked highest at 53.7%, rather than analytical skills, which did not rank high enough
to fall within the top five choices.
6.9.8 Reward Systems
Most participants indicated that they wanted more career-oriented rewards rather than one-
time tangible rewards such as a reward lunch or recognition. A large discrepancy exists
between perceived importance of rewards versus perceived presence, with means of 3.93
and 1.85 respectively.
190
6.9.9 Union and Employee Involvement
Overall, there were a large number of nonrespondents in this section of questions. This
might be due to a social perception bias that makes employees reluctant to answer questions
related to the potential clashing of loyalty to the unions and the implications of employee
involvement programmes. Of those who did respond, most thought there would not be a
clash in interests. As with training and development, the most frequently cited factor
limiting interest in these programmes is that they would be a waste of respondents’ time
(24.6%.)
6.9.10 Organisational Values, Systems, and Policies
The majority of participants only had positive impressions of statements regarding
organisational values, systems, and policies, with the majority of respondents all falling
into the “mostly agree” category on positively framed statements.
It is important to note that the survey, whether gauging importance or work presence, is a
reflection of respondents’ perception of these factors and not actual proof of practice or
presence. With that in mind, the above summaries lend themselves to some consistent
themes within the data, overall, that are reflected partly in the thesis sub-questions.
The first theme that is important to note is the frequency and location where respondents
chose to opt out of the line of questioning. Social biases may have played a role in the
trends of answers for the survey. Any line of questioning regarding stress, negative
reflections on management, or sensitivity towards unions, trended either towards central
tendency bias where participants neither agreed nor disagreed or towards nonresponse
where they opted out of the question entirely.
The second theme revolves around the discrepancy between what employees feel is
important and what they feel is present in the workplace. Across the data there is a
consistently lower score for what employees feel is present than for what they feel is
important, leading one to believe that employees perceive they are lacking some important
aspects of their jobs. This may include proper training or opportunities to go above and
191
beyond their jobs. Ultimately, the respondents give the impression that they are yearning
for more than what is currently provided. While most participants agreed on the lack of
presence, they also concluded that introducing these practices would be highly effective
for their workplace and would benefit greatly from management support for employee
involvement initiatives.
The third theme is that there is a trend with respect to older employees who have been in
the organisation for a long time in two very important respects. The older the employees,
the less interested they are in employee involvement, and the less convinced they are that
employee involvement matters.
6.10 Inferential Statistics
The literature suggests that both descriptive and inferential statistics are important to
understand the data. Numbers, tables, and graphs are used to provide only a description of
the data. On the other hand, inferential statistics help to predict the population parameters.
For example, in inferential statistics sample data is used to make generalizations about a
population. One of the main areas of interferential statistics is hypothesis testing.
Hypothesis testing is a common procedure where sample data is used to answer the research
questions. In this study, the following hypotheses are tested to answer the research
questions.
6.10.1 Hypotheses and Literature Review for each Hypothesis: Hypothesis one (H1): Perceived supportive work practicse are positively associated with the degree of
employee interest in employee involvement programs.
H1 is the main hypothesis that states that supportive work practice is positively
related to employee interest in employee involvement programs. With respect to the theme
of supportive work practice, the factors autonomy, problem-solving opportunities,
communication, and contribution to organizational goals, open door chair policy, and joint
consultation are addressed ( Q17 under the survey questions). Hypothesis two (H2): Management practices are positively related to the degree of employee interest in
employee involvement programs.
The literature indicates that first-line supervisors have most influence on building
a culture of employee involvement (Bates, 2004). However, the literature also suggests
that management style can constrain employee involvement as micromanagers can create
a sense of incompetence in employees and reduce their sense of intrinsic motivation
192
(Lawler, 1992). On the other hand, the role of the manager as coach or facilitator allows
employees to have more flexibility and self-direction in performing their jobs (Osterman
et al., 2001). As the literature indicates inconclusive results between an association
between management practices and employee interest in employee involvement programs
in the workplace, the study aims to examine the extent to whichthe presence of congenial
management practices affects the work involvement practices in the workplace. Therefore,
this study hypothesized that there is a positively association between management practices
and employee interest in employee involvement programs. Hypothesis three (H3): Organization values/system/policies are positively related to the degree of employee
interest in employee involvement programs.
The literature suggests that flexible organizational structures and culture are
important factors to consider in developing a high involvement culture (Gunderson et al.,
factors that facilitate involvement, the most important being fluidity of information sharing
where employees may access any relevant organizational information without structural
barriers and through replacement of hierarchy with teams. Given the potential impact of
organization values/system/policies, I also include this variable as another independent
variable to examineits impact onemployee interest in employee involvement programs. Hypothesis four (H4): Work environment is positively related to employee interest in employee involvement
programs.
Hypothesis four states that job work environment is positively associated with
employee interest in employee involvement programs. There is an evidence of association
between the work environment quality and increased participation in the workplace
(Kudsen et al., 2013). Moreover, the quality work environment is also found relevant in
measuring the well-being of employees. As the quality of work environment is defined in
a broader perspective, e.g., it also refers psycho-social work environment, it helps to
understand how people are affected by their employment, including experience of job
satisfaction and stress ( Hvid and Hasle, 2003). For example, Scott et al. (2003) indicate
that a work environment that allows employee participation in decision- making also
increases job satisfaction. As many studies throughout the years have indicated that work
environment is a good predictor of employee involvement, in this study, work environment
193
is included as another independent variable to examine its effect on employee interest in
employee involvement programs. Hypothesis five (H5): Gender of participant is associated with employee interest in employee e programs.
Hypothesis five indicates that the gender of the employees also affects the perceived
employee interest in employee involvement programs. For example, Cross and Madsen
(1997) indicate that women tend to place a greater importance on the quality of and
opportunity to develop relationships and connectedness with others and this will ultimately
impact their degree of job satisfaction. This finding suggests that females may be more
inclined to embrace the implementation of employee involvement initiatives as it promises
increased opportunity for teamwork, communication and connectedness. With respect to
this research study it is expected that the gender of employees is associated with perceived
employee interest in employee involvement programs. Therefore, the gender of employees
is used as a control variable in the research study model. Hypothesis six (H6): The average length of service (tenure) of employees is negatively associated with
employee interest in employee involvement programs
The sixth hypothesis is that the length of service (tenure) of the employees is
negatively associated with employee interest in employee involvement programs. There is
a discrepancy in the conclusions of the studies regarding this topic. Stout, Slocum & Cron
(1988) concluded that workers who were in the same jobs for over five years reported
increasingly negative job attitudes.
In a global workforce study conducted by Blessings White (2011), engagement increased
the longer employees worked at the organization. Employee engagement also increased
with length of service among hotel employees in China (Zenget al., 2009). However, in
other studies length of service did not have any notable relationship with level of employee
involvement (DiPietro and Pizam, 2008; Kim et al., 2009). Karatepe and Olugbade (2009)
reported that employees who had longer organizational tenure were less vigorous at work.
Therefore, the conflicting evidence as to whether tenure is positively or negatively
associated with perceived employee interest in employee involvement programs implies
that tenure does affect my dependent variable and must be controlled for in my model.
194
Hypothesis seven (H7): The age of employees is positively associated with employee interest in employee
involvement programs.
Hypothesis seven is that the average age of the employees is positively associated
with employee interest in employee involvement programs. Scholarly research has
evaluated the significance of age with respect to involvement levels and finds a positive
correlation between older non-union workers and higher levels of involvement (Simpson,
2009; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003). Rigget al. (2014) studied employee engagement in
hotel employees and found that employees aged 42 years and older were more engaged
than younger employees. In this study the age of employees is included as a control variable
in the regression model. Hypothesis eight (H8): Current union membership is positively associated with employee interest in
employee involvement programs.
The eighth and final hypothesis is that current union membership is positively associated
with employee interest in employee involvement programs. One study indicates that union
membership status hasa significant effect on employee willingness to participate in join
consultation (Cregan & Brown,2010).In relation to this research, it is expected that
employees with current union membership will be positively inclined to become involved
in employee involvement programs in the organization. Therefore, this variable is also
included as control in the research model.
6.10.2 Methodology:
Basic descriptive statistics and cross tabulations were obtained from the data to check data
entry errors and other data related issues. Once the consistency of the data checked through
descriptive statistics, a multivariate factor analysis (with principfal component extraction)
was performed to reduce the data into several factors of interest. Factor analysis also
applied with oblique rotation ( direct oblimin) to understand factor structures more
prominently. Once factor analysis was performed and the factor loading structure was
finalized, reliability of each factor was then assessed through Cronbach’s Alpha. Each
factor passing though reliability tests was then calculated by taking averages of components
contributing to that factor. Once all the factors were created, correlation analysis and
multiple regressions analysis were performed to understand underlying relations of factors
assessed in this study.
195
An EFA (Thompson, 2004) using principal axis factoring was first conducted. An oblique
rotation was used (direct oblimin) given an expectation that the different types of HIWP
(high involvement work practices) would be highly interrelated (Fabrigar, Wegener,
MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). Further, subjective criteria such as Kaiser Criterion or a
Scree test (Thomson, 2004) was used to decide which items should be retain in the factor
analysis. The result of the factor analysis indicated that all the factors represented a high
level of similar type loading. In this analysis, Comrey and Lee’s (1992) criterion of .33 was
used as an acceptably strong loading. The pattern matrix of the EFA indicated 2 component
matrices (see table 85). For understanding internal validity, the internal consistency and
inter-item correlation were analyzed. The overall scale exhibited high internal consistency
with Alpha value .87 (see table 86). Although the sample size is more than 175, the
normality test of the data was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test. The test result (p>.05)
indicated that the overall pattern of the data is normal (see table 87). In this regard, I used
log transformation to make my data set normal. Therefore, both the normality test and the
Q-Q plot (see figure 16) indicated that the data set of the main dependent variable is normal.
Table 85 Construct Validity: Involvement Work Practice
Particulars 1 2
Labour management committees .113 .511
Employee suggestion program .685 .196
Problem-solving teams .316 .662
Self-directed work groups .099 .761
Information sharing .043 .747
Rewards for performance .892 -.082
Performance feedback .929 -.095
Formal socializing .601 .234
Flexibility in decision making -.228 .834
Coaching and mentoring .853 .004
Table 86 Internal Validity: Involvement Work Practice
196
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of Items
.870 .869 10
Table 87: Normality Test: Involvement Work Practice
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Work Inv .074 175 .022 .986 175 .067
Figure 16: Normality Test: Involvement Work Practice
6.10.2.1 Data Source:
The study was conducted in two phases. Initially, an exploratory qualitative case study in
the form of interviews was conducted with a convenience sample of 22 faculty members
to identify broad themes and issues in each of the key criteria that defined the concept of
employee involvement. The results of the interviews were then analyzed and further
explored in the form of an in-depth survey of a random sample of 500 faculty members
across the college divisions. One hundred and seventy-five survey responses were received
representing a response rate of 35%.
6.10.2.2 Variables:
6.10.2.2.1 Dependent Variable
As indicated in the literature review defining the concept of work involvement
practice, this variable is the average of six-point Likert scale answers obtained from Q11a-
197
Q11j in the dataset. These ten questions were selected as they were most consistent with
the definition of work involvement practices for the purposes of this research study; i.e.,
(i) joint labour management committees; (ii) employee suggestion programs ;(iii) self-
directed work groups; (iv) information-sharing with employees; (v) rewards for
As indicated in the literature review defining the concept of organization
values/systems/policies, this variable is the average of six-point Likert scale answers
obtained from Q42a-Q42g in the dataset. These seven questions were selected as they were
most consistent with the definition of organization values/system/policies for the purposes
of this study research. The Cronbach’s alpha statistic of these three items is 0.821, which,
is very high for this research study. 6.10.2.2.2 Independent Variables: Work Environment
As indicated in the literature review defining the concept of work environment, this
variable is the average of six-point Likert scale answers obtained from Q42a-Q42g in the
dataset. These six questions were selected as they were most consistent with the definition
of work environment of this study research. The Cronbach’s alpha statistic of these three
items is 0.815, which, is very high for this research study. 6.10.2.2.3 Control Variables: Gender, time in organization, current union membership, and age of
employees within an organization
Gender of employees – The value for this variable is taken from the answer
provided in Q1. A higher value for this variable indicates that on average, the employees
working for this institution are female.
Current union membership in organization of employees– The value for this
variable is taken from the answer provided in Q6. A higher value for this variable
indicates that on average, the employees working for this institution are the members of
union.
Length of service or time in organization of employees within the firm – The
value for this variable is taken from the answer provided in Q2 (unit: years). A higher
value for this variable indicates that on average, the employees working for a particular
firm have been working for a longer period of time.
Age of employees within the workplace – The value for this variable is obtained
from the answer provided in Q8. A higher value for this variable indicates that on
average, the employees working for in this institution are of an older age.
6.10.2.3 Multiple Linear Regression Model:
The statistical model used to test the all the hypotheses in this study is a multiple
linear regression that takes the following form:
199
Work involvement programs(Y) = β0 +β1supporive work practices +
This chapter explored the findings of the quantitative portion of the study involving
completion of a survey by 175 faculty respondents. Faculty responded to a variety of survey
items designed to capture and further explore the key employee involvement themes
identified in the qualitative portion of the study discussed in Chapter 5. A brief summary
Number of Observation
F(8, 167)
P-values
R-squared
Adjusted R-square
175
11.10
.0000
.347
.316
203
of the results derived from each key survey topic in discussed in sections 6.9 and 6.10 of
this chapter.
The next chapter discusses the results of both the qualitative data presented in Chapter 5
and the quantitative data presented in Chapter 6, conclusions that can be drawn, the
potential limitations of the research study, and future areas of research.
]
204
CHAPTER SEVEN
DISCUSSION
The purpose of Chapter 7 is to provide an overview of this research study and to interpret
the results of the qualitative and quantitative findings presented in chapters 5 and 6. A
summary of the study precedes a discussion of both the qualitative and quantitative results,
which are organised and presented on the basis of each research question, starting with the
central research question.
7.1 Summary of the Study
The overall purpose of the study was to identify the factors that account for the success and
failure of employee involvement (EI) initiatives with respect to faculty in unionised
organisations in higher education institutions. Typically, research in employee involvement
has focused on manufacturing and nonacademic, nonunion service industries. The study
sought to fill in the gap in the research on the prevalence of, and requirements for,
successful implementation of employee involvement initiatives in unionised higher
education environments. Unlike many existing studies that have mainly focused their
attempts on examining the central research question from either management or union
perspectives, this study has attempted to examine the research question and subquestions
from the employee perspective – for the purposes of this study, specifically faculty. The
key assumption of this study was that a better understanding of the factors that promote
and constrain faculty involvement in their jobs and the broader organisation could provide
a key input into policy decisions and into the design of practical interventions that could
serve to promote the adoption of employee involvement strategies in higher education
institutions.
As identified in Chapter 2, there are many models and frameworks used to define the
concept of employee involvement. For the purposes of this study, a synthesised employee
involvement construct was developed from these existing models and theories. This
construct was the basis for the design of both the initial qualitative study used in this
205
research project and in the quantitative survey portion of the study where the initial
employee involvement themes explored qualitatively were expanded upon and explored in
more depth.
The study was conducted in a large community college in Toronto, Canada, among
unionised faculty across a broad range of disciplines. The study was conducted in two
phases. Initially, an exploratory qualitative case study in the form of interviews was
conducted with a convenience sample of 22 faculty members to identify broad themes and
issues relating to each of the key criteria that defined the concept of employee involvement.
The results of the interviews were then analysed and further explored in the form of an in-
depth survey of a random sample of 500 faculty members across the college divisions. One
hundred and seventy-five survey responses were received, representing a response rate of
30%.
The high number of responses from participants provided valuable in-depth data for
presentation and analysis. Although the qualitative case study methodology has limitations,
particularly in terms of statistical analysis, the results of the follow-up quantitative survey
provided sufficient data to answer the overarching research question and subquestions in
depth and to draw conclusions from the study. The discussion of the results and conclusions
of this research study are presented below. The central research question is first addressed
in terms of a summary of findings, followed in turn by a similar approach for each of the
research subquestions. Conclusions to the study and recommendations for policies and
practices will be discussed in Chapter 8
7.2 Central Research Question: Results and Conclusions
The central research question examined the factors that account for the success and failure
of employee involvement (EI) initiatives with respect to faculty in unionised organisations
in higher education institutions:
206
What are the factors that account for the success and failure of employee
involvement initiatives with respect to faculty in unionised organisations in higher
education?
For this study, the employee involvement construct used and identified in Chapter 2 was
grouped into major themes for purposes of data collection and analysis in the qualitative
portion of the study. These major themes were Work practices, training and development,
management style, rewards, and organisational structure, strategies and policies. The
quantitative study provided more depth to the data collected in the qualitative portion. For
the discussion of findings related to the central research question, the framework of major
themes used in the qualitative study will be applied to discuss both the qualitative and the
quantitative findings. The qualitative and quantitative findings for each major theme will
be summarised, followed by conclusions.
7.2.1 Theme: Work Practices
With respect to the theme of work practices, the factors of autonomy, problem-solving
opportunities, communication, contribution to organisational goals, and impact of
workload on work-life balance are addressed.
Subtheme: Autonomy.Results of both interviews and surveys support the literature by
indicating that faculty perceive that bureaucratic policies and procedures such as team
teaching, management control of final evaluation outcomes in the form of extra paperwork
to process exams, and constraints on faculty with respect to choices of courses to teach and
choice of texts all served to limit faculty autonomy by restricting the level of faculty
involvement in decision-making regarding their work. Contrary to the literature (Burton,
2015), faculty find team teaching in the guise of handling curriculum planning and
evaluation served to restrict their sense of autonomy.
207
Table 90
Summary Table, Subtheme: Autonomy
Summary of interview data Summary of survey data
Concluding remarks
Feedback from the faculty interviews identify factors promoting auto-nomous work practices mainly as the professor’s ability to choose course material and to design courses. While understanding that general guidelines need to be followed to ensure consistency in the teaching material, faculty members recognise that they are afforded the freedom to determine how to design, deliver, and evaluate their courses. Both sessional and full-time faculty agree that the more specialised the subject area, the more autonomy they are afforded in terms of design, development, and delivery of the course.
Factors that reduce autonomy include the need for chairs to sign off on exams and the need to submit learning outcomes forms with the exams. Some cited the need for team teaching in some subject areas as a factor that significantly limits their autonomy because of the need for common assignments and exams for all faculty teaching a particular subject.
A number of faculty suggest that autonomy could be increased by having more input into choice of textbooks and choice of courses to teach.
Table 22 depicts the frequency statistics for the question, “What are the three most significant factors which limit autonomy in your job?” The collective agree-ment is deemed to limit autonomy most, as 38.3% of the respond-ents indicate that the collective agreement is of “highest signifi-cance”.
The second most common factor is consi-dered to be “limited choices about subjects taught.” Chair approval of tests and exams and team teaching courses are of “moderate signifi-cance,” while curricu-lum requirements by professional bodies are chosen as having the least amount of significance affecting autonomy.
Results of both interview and survey indicate that burea-ucratic policies and procedures such as team teaching, ma-nagement control of final evaluation out-comes in the form of extra paperwork to process exams, and limitations of faculty with respect to choices of courses to teach and choice of texts all served to limit faculty auto-nomy. However, the collective agreement was identified as the most significant fac-tor in limiting faculty autonomy while curriculum require-ments by professio-nal bodies were rated as least significant.
Short and Rinehart (1992) support the need for reducing the barriers to autonomy by
identifying six dimensions of teacher empowerment, which include the level of teacher
involvement in decisions involving their work and teachers’ perceptions that they have
autonomy over their work. Vandenberg, Richardson, and Eastman (1999) stress that
organisations must ensure that they develop the perception in employees, both front-line
and management, that they are indeed involved. This perception should be created not only
208
by implementing HR practices but also by developing an organisational culture of
involvement.
Significantly, the data identify the collective agreement as having the most limiting impact
of faculty autonomy, a finding contrary to the literature. Wilkinson, Townsend, and
Burgess (2013) find to the contrary in studying both manufacturing and service sectors that
organisations with the highest union density also had the highest levels of decision-making.
Pohler and Luchak (2014) stress that unionised employees are more satisfied with their
workplace through the ability of the union to consider the needs and preferences of diverse
employees. This study’s finding on the limiting effect of the collective agreement may be
due to the fact that the college collective agreement is very specific about the number of
hours a faculty member may teach per term, which places constraints on the number and
types of courses faculty can teach as the number of assigned hours spelled out in the
collective agreement drives the number and types of course assignments. Additionally, the
nature of work in a higher education institution is fundamentally different in nature from
the work of manufacturing or service- based organisations, where knowledge workers may
be more directly impacted by working conditions and terms outlined in the collective
agreement.
Subtheme: Problem-solving opportunities. The majority of faculty identified problem-
solving opportunities as very important as a measure of involvement in both the qualitative
and the quantitative study, but only rated this factor as somewhat present in their daily
work. The key reason for this finding is identified in the qualitative study as a lack of
sufficient and focused team meetings, as meetings are often focused on information-sharing
by management rather than generating team-based solutions to problems.
Faculty identifies factors such as working as part of a team in the case of team teaching as beneficial for problem-solving opportunities.
Regular department meetings are another factor that is rated highly by faculty as a vehicle for promoting problem-solving opportunities
However, several faculty members find that problem-solving opportunities are not as available as they should be, including a lack of sufficient team meetings and poor attendance at what are perceived as ineffective meetings.
Faculty view the meetings as informative rather than an opportunity for problem-solving, and they do not feel that they are empowered to contribute to solutions.
They also state that the top-down information flow from management provides little opportunity for faculty input into problem-solving, particularly at the organisational level.
Table 30 details the frequency statistics for questions pertaining to problem-solving. In response to the question regarding the extent to which problem-solving teams are important in the work environment, 53.1% indicate it is “very important” and 30.9% say it is “somewhat important,” with 1.1% saying it is“not important.”
Regarding the degree to which opportunities for job-related problem-solving (e.g., regular team meetings) are present in the workplace, 49.1% noted that they are “somewhat present,” while 26.3% stated that they are “slightly present.”
These findings are supported in the literature by Pollay, Taylor, and Thompson (1976),
who propose the use of small, frequent meetings based on horisontal power-sharing and
decision-making to engage faculty more fully in solving immediate work-related and
broader organisational problems. Gamboa and Melão (2012), in a study of success factors
in employee involvement in education, identify line manager support in providing
employees with time and opportunities to work on process improvement projects as key.
This study’s finding that top-down management decision-making works against
involvement is supported by the literature where studies with respect to service industries
confirm that decentralisation of decision-making in everyday business operations is
positively related to idea generation and innovation (Abdel Aziz & Rizkallah, 2015).
Phipps, Prieto, and Ndinguri (2013) confirm the need for decentralisation of decision-
making, stating that a culture that promotes employee involvement recognises and
embraces the development of employees, the facilitation of their informed decision-
making, and the sharing of power between management and the workforce. In a high-
involvement culture, management encourages choice and participation in decision-making
210
instead of control (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994). In a highly involved
organisation the line of sight lengthens with greater access to information and involvement
in running the business while the focus of top management and front-line employees
converges as the employees start to see that they also have a say and stake in the company’s
success (Kaufman, 2003).
Subtheme: Communication. The results of the study are supported by the literature on
the relationship between communication and building a highly involved workforce. It
highlights the importance of the opportunity for employees to contribute to the
development of organisational goals through effective communication with management.
Table 92
Summary Table, Subtheme: Communication
Summary of interview data Summary of survey data
Faculty identify top-down communication and limited communication, mostly in the form of emails, as key in promoting a weak communication structure in the college. Lack of regular feedback on performance and organisational issues are also identified as key factors in poor communication between faculty and management.
On the issue of performance feedback, faculty feel that student surveys, which constitute the only tangible feedback, are ineffective indicators of faculty performance, being limited in scope and untimely in results provided to professors.
Faculty identify a lack of communication by management in discussing the strategic plan and vision with faculty as a major problem in building faculty commitment and involvement.
Infrequent, information-based meetings are also identified as ineffective tools for promoting sharing of ideas and innovation that moves the group forward.
The findings of Table 58 support the qualitative findings of limited use and variety of communication channels, with only 33% of faculty giving a positive rating to the statement, “Management uses a variety of communication channels to communicate with employees.”
Faculty members also give a low positive rating of 33% to the statement, “Top management has a clear vision which is effectively communicated to employees.” With respect to seeking out faculty suggestions and opinions, only 28% of faculty provide strong positive agreement to the statement, “Management actively seeks out employee suggestions and opinions.”
211
Scholars in the field of employee involvement have identified two-way communication
and joint consultation between employees and management as key requirements for the
successful development of an EI culture (Lawler, 1992; Ackers, Marchington, Wilkinson,
& Goodman, 1992). More recently, Evans and Davis (2005) argue that an employee
involvement culture promotes communication and cooperation that in turn reduces
employee turnover and enhances organisational performance. In a cross-sectional study of
three service sector organisations in Canada, Boudrias et al. (2010) identify the supervisor’s
ability to effectively communicate organisational objectives and relevant job information
as instrumental in enhancing levels of employee involvement. S. H. Appelbaum, Karasek,
Lapointe, and Quelch(2015) conclude that a culture of trust and open communication is
necessary for the development of an employee involvement culture.
For the most part, the results of the study reinforce these literature findings. While both the
qualitative and quantitative findings highlighted faculty desire for a more effective
communication process with management, this finding is contrary to the union view of
employee involvement presented in the literature where communication between employee
and management is not seen as a promoter of involvement, but instead may be seen as
creating a second and divisive channel of communication that may serve to erode the
collective bargaining process (Eaton, 1990). This finding points to an important difference
between unionised and nonunion organisations in how communication between employees
and management is viewed with respect to promoting employee involvement. The very
presence of the union and the union’s view of its function as a voice for employees and its
subsequent actions in daily operations and through the collective bargaining process may
serve to reduce the effectiveness of management’s attempts to communicate clearly and
directly to individual employees at front-line levels of the organisation. In turn, the union
impediment to the flow in communication between employee and management may serve
to constrain the employee’s ability to have unobstructed and unbiased access to the
information necessary to engage fully in supporting the goals of the organisation.
212
Subtheme: Opportunities to contribute to organisational goals. Faculty’s desire to have
a higher level of involvement in the broader organisational context can serve to improve
involvement and ultimately organisational efficiency. The literature identifies many
benefits to affording employees a higher level of contribution. These benefits include the
ability of employees to identify problem areas and to suggest practical solutions.
Table 93
Summary Table, Subtheme: Opportunities to Contribute to Organisational Goals
Summary of interview data Summary of survey data
Faculty identify the restrictive nature of working in a unionised environment coupled with the collective agreeement as major deterrents to engaging in activities outside of their jobs that would provide them with more challenges and opportunities to contribute to organisational goals. While sitting on committees such as the cheating and plagiarism committee and attending convocation were seen as major avenues for extra participation, these were too infrequent in nature to be significant drivers of increased contribution. Part-time contract faculty also indicate that they were only paid for in-class time that limited their desire to contribute beyond their immediate job duties.
Faculty also indicated that they are not made aware of extra opportunities, and that when they do participate they are not recognised for their contributions. Younger faculty also feel that their ideas and opinions may not be valued, particularly in a work environment based on seniority with a high percentage of older workers.
Table 28 indicates that although faculty are willing to put effort into achieving organisational goals beyond the immediate scope of their jobs and feel it is important to do so, they feel that opportunities to contribute are very limited. Approximately 59% of the faculty either “strongly“ or“mostly” agreed with the statement, “I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what is normally expected to help this organisation be successful.” When asked about the extent to which opportunities to contribute were available, 80.6% indicated that they were only “slightly” to “somewhat” available.
Table 58 reflects the gap between the 52% of faculty who “mostly” or “strongly agree” that management believes that faculty have the knowledge and skills to improve organisational performance and the 30% who “mostly” or “strongly agree” that management actively seeks out employee suggestions and opinions.
Employees may also be more accepting of change initiatives and changes made will be
more sustainable than those unilaterally imposed by management (E. Appelbaum, Bailey,
Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000; Gruman & Saks, 2011). Vandenberg et al. (1999) stress that an
important aspect of creating a high-involvement culture is to create the perception among
employees that they are indeed involved by providing a broad range of opportunities for
213
them to contribute beyond job requirements, suggesting that employee surveys on faculty
perceptions of involvement should be used as a standard metric in implementing and
evaluating the success of employee involvement programmes. Pollay et al. (1976) studied
power-sharing and decision-making by faculty in selecting a dean and concluded that the
participatory process forced faculty to ponder the organisation’s – and hence their own –
strategy and future prospects, thus promoting a self-adaptive organisational learning
process.
Buch and Shelnutt (1995) report that employees who felt that management had little
interest in their ideas about implementing an employee involvement programme at their
university experienced reduced interest and sense of empowerment in the implementation
process. Bogler and Somech (2005) also find that teachers who are involved in decision-
making related either to their classroom or more broadly to the organisation exhibited more
engaged behaviour with both their students and their colleagues. Donais (2010) makes the
important point that the road to engaging a unionised workforce begins with engaging
union leadership, as employees rely on the union to test the reality of management
proposals with respect to organisational vision, goals, strategies, and working conditions.
Creating an environment of trust for employees also depends on reliance on the union’s
due diligence in ascertaining that the employer is acting with integrity and is deserving of
their trust.
In sum, both the literature and study findings support the notion that allowing faculty more
decision-making input in organisational issues beyond the scope of their job can serve to
create a higher level of EI through increased levels of citizenship and sense of ownership,
maintaining the organisation’s viability in the long term.
214
Subtheme: Workload and work-life balance. The literature supports the findings of the
qualitative and quantitative results regarding the impact of both job-related and non-job-
related stress factors on employee involvement. There is much evidence in the literature
that increasing levels of influence and responsibility at the job- and non-job-related levels
& Smeaton, 2003). In the move to managing the pressures on education as a result of
globalisation, changes in the governance of schools, which are now being designed to
replicate business models, mean that faculty are now subjected to greater levels of pressure
through increased responsibility for activities outside their jobs such as budgets and job-
related planning activities (Markey, Patmore, & Balnave, 2010).
Table 94
Summary Table, Subtheme: Workload and Work-Life Balance
Summary of interview data Summary of survey data
Qualitative findings suggest that faculty for the most part feel that workload is manageable and does not affect their ability to become more involved in broader organisational activities.
Some constraints that faculty cite as increasing stress and therefore reducing time or desire to be more involved include ever-increasing accountability outside the classroom such as the increase in administrative work that has shifted to faculty. Also constraining is the increasingly diverse student base and needs such as ESL students. Another constraint on involvement is the difficulty in forming strong bonds of collegiality because of varying faculty schedules.
Table 24 also supports the qualitative finding of manageable workload, where 87% of faculty “strongly” or “mostly agree” that their workload and schedule provide a high degree of work-life balance.
While faculty feel their immediate workload is manageable, fewer (51%) either “mostly” or “strongly agree” that they have time to plan and develop either current or future courses.
Table 26 reveals that faculty rank “resolving student issues” and “bureau-cratic policies and procedures” as the top two stress factors related to their jobs.
The finding that varying work schedules impede the creation of a culture of involvement
is unique to this study and contradictory to the literature since flexibility of work schedule
has not been identified in the literature as a constraint on involvement. Indeed, the literature
touts flexibility as an important element of the HIWS (Gunderson, Ponak, & Taras,
2005)..In a study of the relationship between nonstandard workers and organisational
commitment, Wittmer and Martin (2011) found that part-time workers tend to be less
215
psychologically involved in the workplace and experience less positive work attitudes than
full-time employees. There are many reasons for this finding, arising from outside and
inside the organisation. In a sense, unionised college faculty with flexible work schedules
may be considered to be nonstandard workers, and many do indeed have small businesses
and other teaching commitments elsewhere that occupy their time and energy and lessen
their attachment to the organisation even though they have full-time status. In addition to
other outside commitments, the lack of frequent contact and communication with other
faculty owing to flexible schedules may serve to reduce feelings of affective commitment
to the organisation. As discussed at length in the literature, key requirements for an
effective employee involvement programme include the use of teams and constant
communication throughout the organisation; both factors are significantly affected
negatively when faculty are not in full and regular attendance at work on a daily basis.
7.2.2 Theme: Training and Development
The literature supports the study’s findings on the importance of training and development
opportunities in creating successful employee involvement programmes. Fu (2013)
invokes the use of extensive training and development to create innovative workplace
behaviour in employees that is essential for firm innovation. Gephart and Van Buren (1996)
identify adequate training and support as a critical success factor for the implementation of
an employee involvement system. Lawler (1992), and more recently Jimmieson, Hannam,
and Yeo (2010), cite training and development as an important vehicle for improving
employee decision-making capabilities, while Gunderson et al. (2005) identify a highly
skilled and trained workforce as a key element of a high-involvement workplace. The
significant impact of training and development in building employee involvement is
supported by Evans and Davis (2005), who posit that employee involvement programmes
improve organisation performance by giving employees the knowledge, skills, and abilities
to perform job tasks as well as the motivation to do so (Delery & Shaw, 2001). In doing
so, employee discretionary effort, creativity, and productivity are increased. These in turn
increase organisational measures such as employee turnover and job satisfaction (Dyer &
Reeves, 1995).
216
Table 95
Summary Table, Theme: Training and Development
Summary of interview data Summary of survey data
Faculty perceive that courses offered by Professional Development met their basic needs, particularly in the area of technology.
However, most feel training is limited in scope and time, primarily because of budget restrictions. Training done by the internal professional development group is deemed ineffective, particularly as there is no formal training procedure for training staff in place. Lack of information about training opportunities and academic advancement are also key constraints on receiving effective training. Lack of effective training is perceived by staff as a significant barrier to having the tools and information needed to do a good job, which in turn reduces their sense of efficacy and engagement.
Table 33 reveals a gap between faculty’s view of the high importance of training and development oppor-tunities as a vehicle for greater employee involvement and the actual presence of these opportunities. While 70% of faculty “mostly agreed” opportunities for professional develop-ment were important, only 26% felt they were “very present” on the job. While 73% of faculty deem training and development essential for employee involvement, 48% feel that lack of support for employee development creates a barrier to involvement.
Table 40 reveals a lack of time to take training and lack of customised training for specific faculty needs as additional contributors to the gap.
From the organisational learning and knowledge management perspective, employee
involvement programmes help firms to build a strong organisational culture and climate.
This in turn allows employees to create, transfer, and implement their knowledge, which
helps a firm to create and maintain its core competencies (Shipton, Fay, West, Patterson,
& Birdi, 2005). In the field of higher education, this means more innovation and excellence
in teaching.
217
7.2.3 Theme: Management Style
Subtheme: Chair’s style. The finding on the strong influence of middle management,
rather than top- or programme-level management differs from the literature, where first-
line supervisors are seen as having the most influence on building a culture of employee
involvement (Bates, 2004). This discrepancy may be due to the difference in the nature of
work done in previous research, which has focused on manufacturing jobs where first-line
supervisors need to have a more hands-on role in leadership while academic leadership
requires more coaching and mentoring rather than hands-on, directive leadership. Both
qualitative and quantitative results highlight the fact that management tends to be
authoritarian and top-down, with little opportunity for bottom-up collaboration and
contribution. This management approach can constrain employee involvement, as
micromanagers can create a sense of incompetence in employees and reduce their sense of
intrinsic motivation (Lawler, 1992). On the other hand, the role of manager as coach or
facilitator allows employees to have more flexibility and self-direction in performing their
jobs (Osterman,Kochan, Locke, & Piore, 2001).
Faculty feel management views their role as mainly administrative and also that many mid-
level managers lack the necessary interpersonal skills to perform effectively. Literature
findings support the notion that mid-level managers view themselves as primarily
administrators, a view which works against creating a climate of employee involvement
While faculty identify many positive aspects of management style such as respect for staff,
fairness in administering policies, and flexibility in work assignments, qualitative and
quantitative data also show a low rating by faculty on management’s receptiveness to the
implementation of employee involvement. A lack of connection at a personal level is
identified as a key constraint on furthering faculty desire to be more involved.
Management’s ability to relate to staff is viewed as extremely important but lacking in the
work environment according to qualitative data results.
218
Table 96
Summary Table, Subtheme: Chair’s Style
Summary of interview data Summary of survey data
With respect to creating a culture of involvement, on the positive side, faculty feel their chairs are fair in administering policies and schedules. They also feel their chairs keep communication channels open by using an open-door policy and being open to suggestions from faculty. Faculty also feel that chair receptiveness to new ideas and concepts as well as practising “management by walking around” also serve to create a culture of involvement.
Fairness in administering policies and procedures as well a lack of discrimination is also cited as serving to promote a culture of involvement.
On the negative side, faculty feel that chairs are too focused on administrative issues and deficient in providing support. Chairs are described as doing more monitoring than mentoring. Faculty also feel that chairs tend to use an authoritative rather than participative style of management that reduces faculty desire to be more involved in their work. Chairs are also described as ‘old school” and lacking the education or management skills required to manage a professional workforce. Faculty also feel that chairs micromanage rather than focusing on employee development and coaching. Lack of connection with managers at a personal level and management’s lack of interpersonal skill are also viewed as barriers to creating a higher degree of employee involvement.
Table 45 reveals that attitudes of management, particularly mid-level management, are key in developing a participative climate for faculty. Eighty-four percent of faculty “mostly” or “strongly” agree that the attitudes and behaviours of department chairs are most significant rather than programme-level or top- level management. A key constraint on promoting employee involvement is the belief by faculty that management sees its role as primarily administrative (62% “mostly” or “strongly” espouse this belief). Another key constraint on management effectiveness in creating a culture of involvement relates to faculty’s negative view of the statement that management believes that faculty have the skills and knowledge to improve organisational performance through employee involvement practices (only 37% “mostly” or “strongly agree”). Faculty also feel that there is a low level of trust between management and faculty where only 20% of faculty either “mostly” or “strongly agree” with the statement, “There is a high degree of trust between management and faculty.”
Table 49 highlights some possible reasons cited by faculty for management resistance to employee involvement initiatives, including management fear of loss of control over work issues, followed by the belief that faculty will not work in the best interests of the organisation and fear of management job losses.
Table 51 identifies interpersonal skills as most critical for creating high involvement by faculty. Coaching and mentoring skills as well as communication skills are also highly rated as important in an effective chair.
Belcourt and Taggart (2002), in a study of public-sector employees in Canada, support the
finding that affective commitment by employees to the organisation or to their manager is
associated with higher levels of performance and involvement in their jobs. Interpersonal
219
skills were also identified as the most important skill for a chair. The literature identifies
and supports the importance of interpersonal skills for building involvement and most
importantly as the vehicle for building trust in management and the organisation (S. H.
Appelbaum et al., 2004; Spreitzer & Mishra, 1999).
On the issue of trust, the quantitative findings did not strongly support the view that faculty
feel that there was a high degree of trust between themselves and management. Trust is
advocated in the literature a key ingredient of employee involvement. Kahn (1990)
describes trust as a form of psychological safety that allows employees to experiment and
be creative without fear of reprisals. Schuler (1992) proposes that a great benefit of
employee empowerment is that it increases employees’ trust in their managers by
dissolving boundaries between the two parties. However, Jones and George (1998) point
out that a great challenge for the organisation is to build trust by implementing progressive
human resources practices. In a study of the relationship between procedural justice and
employee involvement, Wu and Chaturvedi (2009) conclude that employee involvement
initiatives are effective in shaping the perception of fair procedures and in fostering
perceptions of procedural justice, which in turn encourage positive employee attitudes.
These positive employee attitudes include increased employee trust between employees
and management as well as increased employee commitment and organizational
citizenship (Tang & Ibrahim, 2008). The managerial implications from a human resources
management perspective are that managers, particularly middle managers need to be
trained to create an empowering environment for employees and to practice empowering
management techniques. Specifically management must bet trained in moving from an
administrative leadership style to one that focuses more on coaching and mentoring
employees and facilitating team processes. Management must also be trained in
establishing communication processes that facilitate knowledge sharing such as open door
policies, regular team meetings and focus groups. Human resources policies and practices
should focus on promoting procedural and distributive justice including the use of fair
administrative processes to recruit, select, compensate, train and promote employees.
220
Subtheme: Consultation with faculty and management receptiveness. The study
findings indicate that faculty perceive lack of opportunities for joint consultation with
management and management’s lack of receptiveness to engage in more participative
behaviours such as joint consultation on broader issues than immediate teaching schedules
and concerns as significant constraints on their ability and desire to be more fully involved
in their work and organisational issues.
221
Table 97
Summary Table, Subtheme: Consultation with Faculty and Management
Receptiveness
Summary of interview data Summary of survey data
Faculty identify the collective bargaining process as very effective in helping to facilitate faculty input on decisions concerning their work. They also cite daily discussions with course and programme cocoordinators as a key tool for consultation on work decisions. However, they feel that broader consultation on strategic issues concerning their work or broader organisational issues was limited.
On the negative side, faculty feel the organisation is a top-down, management-driven culture, particularly at chair and top management levels, representing a significant barrier to a collaborative culture. Faculty also believe management spends too much time cloistered in their offices and not much time engaging with faculty. Generally, they feel that most of their interaction with the chair was limited to discussing work assignments.
Table 56 supports the qualitative findings. While 60% of faculty feel it is “very important” for management to be receptive to new ideas, only 20% feel this is “very present” in the work environment. While at least 68% of faculty feel that joint consultation is “somewhat” to “very important,” only 42% feel it is present. Interestingly, while 42% of faculty “mostly agree” that management is generally receptive to new ways of doing things suggested by faculty, only 34% “mostly agree” that management would be receptive to the implementation of employee involvement practices.
Table 58 reflects faculty perceptions that management is not proactive in seeking out faculty suggestions and opinions, where only 28% of faculty perceive that “management actively seeks out employee suggestions and opinions.” Only 33% of faculty believe management often models participative behaviour by asking for faculty input.
These findings are strongly supported in the literature pertaining to factors that are
important in creating a culture of involvement. Many definitions of employee involvement
identify knowledge and information as key components of a strong culture of involvement
(Ackers et al., 1992; Konrad, 2006; Lawler, 1992). Dachler and Wilpert (1978) suggest
that employee participation can be viewed as a continuum reflecting the degree of actual
decision-making and influence that employees exercise in their work with higher levels of
decision-making leading to higher levels of involvement. Employee input in decisions
formerly made by management and worker involvement in quality issues at all stages of
the work process are key in generating a sense of participation and a key characteristic of
a successful employee involvement culture (Gittleman, Horrigan, & Joyce, 1998;
Gunderson et al., 2005). E. J. Walton and Dawson (2001) posit that an effective employee
222
involvement system encourages collaboration of thoughts and transfer of information that
can be used to further organisational objectives and can ultimately serve to provide the
organisation with a competitive advantage.
The importance of management receptiveness in creating a culture of involvement found
in the study is supported by the literature. Managerial ideology affects behaviour and
outcomes at all levels of the organisation and plays an important role in impacting
employee attitudes, productivity, and quality. Moreover, employees are most likely to look
to their managers for guidance in ideological areas (Godard, 1997; Goll & Zeitz, 1991).
The study reveals faculty beliefs that management is reluctant to engage in implementing
employee involvement practices, and the literature supports these findings. Simons (1995)
proposes that effective managers believe in the innate potential of their employees to add
value, and that to unleash employee potential, the manager must be willing to give up
control over decision-making and transfer it to employees. Klein (1984) cites concerns over
job security, extra work around programme coordination, and loss of status and power as
boss as key reasons for management resistance.
7.2.4 Theme: Rewards
A key component of creating a culture of employee involvement is to reward employees
for expending discretionary effort to enhance organisational performance (Lawler, 1992).
Effective employee involvement systems are based on innovative compensation practices
to motivate employees, including financial rewards such as incentives and profit-sharing
(Ackers et al., 1992; E. J. Walton & Dawson, 2001).
223
Table 98
Summary Table, Theme: Rewards
Summary of interview data Summary of survey data
Faculty express the view that generally there is no need for extrinsic rewards as they are well paid and budgets are limited. Many feel that motivation for teaching should be intrinsic where growth and development should be key motivating factors. They express the view that the most meaningful rewards are intrinsically based. Unfortunately, the only rewards generally given out are extrinsic ones such as wall plaques and certificates, and these are only occasionally handed out. Public recognition such as teaching awards is also cited as a motivating factor, but faculty feel there is no concrete programme in place to support excellence in teaching.
Faculty believe the current college reward system is inconsistent and the current random reward system does not promote quality teaching or greater citizenship behaviour. The union presence is also deemed to limit the availability of rewards, particularly extrinsic rewards, as the traditional union compensation system does not allow for performance bonuses, profit-sharing, and other incentive based rewards.
Table 60 indicates that 54% of employees perceived rewards for performance as “very important,” while 56% described it as “not present.” The qualitative data on lack of a structured reward system are supported by quantitative results, where 72% of faculty “mostly”agree that there is a lack of a consistent reward and recognition system.
Quantitative results support qualitative data reflecting faculty’s desire for intrinsic rewards. Table 62 indicates that faculty desire freedom and challenge in their work as well as training and development opportunities as primary rewards. Tangible, extrinsic rewards such as tokens of appreciation like lunch, praise from supervisor, and public recognition such as teaching awards are ranked as far less significant in contributing to work effectiveness and greater citizenship behaviour.
The study results indicate that faculty appreciate intrinsic rewards much more than extrinsic
rewards in promoting a higher level of motivation and ultimately employee involvement.
These findings appear to contradict the literature that promotes tangible and incentive-
based rewards as a key component of employee involvement programmes (Ackers et al.,
1992; E. J. Walton & Dawson, 2001; Fu, 2013). Most of the literature on employee
involvement has focused on manufacturing and low-level service jobs where incentive
rewards may be more important to employees. In a unionised, white-collar academic
environment where salaries and benefits are quite generous, the nonfinancial and intrinsic
rewards may be more important in promoting involvement given the nature of these types
of employees. While faculty in higher education generally have relatively high job security,
wages, and benefits, and relatively high job autonomy, they have limited avenues for
224
promotion and development, as well as limited budgets available for such activities outside
their job, owing to the constraints created both by the collective agreement and by
bureaucratic policies, procedures, and budgets. Instead, intrinsic rewards and psychological
factors play a significant role in faculty performance and desire to engage in more
citizenship behaviour (Oplatka, 2006; Somech & Ron, 2007). In a study of college faculty,
Bieg, Backes, and Mittag (2011) report that few faculty valued teacher awards and
preferred instead more developmental and promotional opportunities. These contradictory
findings in the literature concerning the greater importance of intrinsic rewards is supported
by Cooke (1994), who finds in a study of nonunion and unionised firms that incentive
compensation programmes are not an effective component of employee involvement
programmes in unionised firms.
7.2.5 Theme: Organisational Structure, Strategies, and Policies
The qualitative study identified two key structural variables that promoted a high-
involvement culture. The first of these was identified as small, team-based work units that
dealt with planning for multisection courses and specific academic programmes.
The use of small work groups and horizontal power-sharing is supported by the literature
(Pollay et al., 1976; Buch & Shelnutt, 1995). The use of social events to generate a feeling
of camaraderie and increase employee involvement is also supported in the literature. At a
macro level, Knudsen, Markey, and Simpkin (2013), in a study of work environment and
participation in schools, find a positive association between work environment quality and
increased participation in the workplace. Interestingly, they find that more participation is
wanted by the teachers at the schools with the worst work environment but is not in great
demand among teachers enjoying a good work environment. The literature supports the
notion that employee involvement initiatives serve as both intrinsic and extrinsic
motivators by fulfilling employee needs in the areas of growth and development as well as
economic, family, and social needs (Shen et al., 2014).
225
Table 99
Summary Table, Theme: Organisational Structure, Strategies, and Policies
Summary of interview data Summary of survey data
Faculty identify two key structural factors that promote involvement: small, team-based work units that deal with planning for multisection courses and social events such as picnics that contribute to building a sense of camaraderie. The open-door policy practised by management is cited as very effective in creating a sense of involvement. On the negative side, faculty feel that the bureaucratic nature of the organisation and the presence of the union and the collective agreement limit the organisation’s ability to move to a more high-involvement culture. Faculty feel that the collective agreement constrains their ability to be more entrepreneurial in developing programmes that would appeal to outside agencies since their hours and pay are limited by the collective agreement. In particular, the practice of assigning teaching loads through the impersonal method of placing the workload forms in faculty mailboxes creates an arm’s-length relationship between the chair and faculty members.
Structurally, the high degree of hierarchy and functional organisation of the various departments and schools create an adversarial culture and low level of faculty involvement, particularly outside of the faculty member’s immediate job and team.
Table 77 indicates that while about 50% of faculty feel “the organisation sets reasonable goals and objectives,” only 30% “mostly agree” that “decisions about work are made at the levels where the most adequate information is available.” On the positive side, 44% of faculty “mostly agree” that “work activities are sensibly structured.” Also on a positive note, 47% of faculty expressed loyalty to the organisation. However, only 32% of faculty “mostly agree” that the organisation would be willing to help if they needed a special favour.
For the most part, the literature supports the study findings that flexible organisational
structures and culture are important factors to consider in developing a high-involvement
Olugbade (2009) reported that employees who had longer organisational tenure were less
vigorous at work. The findings in the present study appear to point clearly to an inverse
correlation between age of faculty, length of service, and union membership on one hand
and faculty perception of the value of employee involvement activities or their desire to
become more involved on the other. This finding may have significance for organisations
that have more traditionally confrontational union-management relations in terms of
successful implementation of employee involvement initiatives.
7.5.3 Teaching Experience
The data from the study related to teaching experience are highly comparable to the data
reflecting number of years in the organisation. This observation is reasonable given that as
professors stay longer with the organisation they gain more teaching experience. One can
therefore conclude that within the case study organisation, the amount of teaching
experience also has an inverse correlation with employee perception of the value of
employee involvement activities or their desire to become more engaged.
7.5.4 Qualifications
The highest level of interest in employee involvement activities was displayed by faculty
at the master’s level, comprising approximately half of the faculty, in contrast to much less
interest expressed by those with bachelor’s or PhD degrees. One may assume a correlation
between age, duration of service, and level of degree obtained, as generally younger faculty
would be at the bachelor’s level, with progressively higher degrees obtained as faculty age
and stay with the organisation for a long period as tends to be the pattern in higher education
institutions. If this assumption is correct, then we may surmise that new faculty with
bachelor’s degrees may not have developed the level of affective commitment required to
welcome employee involvement initiatives, and older faculty may experience declining
242
levels of affective commitment over time, and consequently feel less desire to become
involved or to see the value of employee involvement. A key observation that may be
deduced from the analysis of age, length of service, teaching experience, and qualifications
is that it is essential that unionised organisations that want to implement employee
involvement initiatives focus on developing affective commitment in all levels of
employees as well as a cooperative labour-management culture.
7.5.5 Ethnicity
The data on ethnicity revealed that South Asians and Chinese showed the most interest in
the introduction of employee involvement initiatives while Caucasian and Filipino faculty
showed the least interest. Since many of the South Asians and Chinese in the study were
recent immigrants from India and China, it may be surmised that cross-cultural factors such
as coming from collectivist cultures that place a high value on education may be reflected
in the study data.
7.6 Correlational analysis and Multiple Regressions model
In this subsection, an overview of each bivariate correlation and the findings of each of the
hypotheses are discussed. First, bivariate correlation of each variable of this study is
discussed. The outcomes of multiple regressions have been discussed including the
findings of each hypothesis.
The correlational matrix table (see table 88) suggests that all the variables including both
dependent and independent variables in this study are significantly correlated. The
correlation matrix (table 88) suggests that the dependent variable, employee interest in
employee involvement program, is significantly correlated with other predicting variables
such as supportive work practices, management practices, work environment, and
organisational values, systems & policies. For example, supportive work practice is highly
associated with employee interest in employee involvement programs which suggests that
organisations with supportive work practices will encourage their employees to participate
in employee involvement program. As the correlation between employee interest in
243
involvement programs and supportive work practices found moderately high( r=.519**) in
this study, it can be inferred that supportive work practices is considered as one of the
important factors that promote employee interest in work involvement programs in the
organizations . In hypothesis 1, it was proposed that employee interest in employee
involvement program would positively relate to supportive work practices. Both the
correlational and the multiple linear regression provided support for the hypothesis
1(p<.001). Both the correlational and regression co-efficient suggest that the finding of the
current study are consistent with the past studies. Supportive work practice consists of
sub-themes such as communication, autonomy, problem-solving opportunities and training
and development and these items were found to be significant in creating employee interest
in work involvement programs. The finding of the current study is consistent with the study
findings of Phipps and other colleagues (2013) that suggest that decentralized decision
making and sharing of power between management and the workforce promote work
involvement programs. For example, management encourages choice and participation in
decision-making in a high-involvement culture (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994).
Moreover, one study suggests that top-down decision making process works against
involvement whereas the decentralized decision-making in everyday business operation is
positively related to idea generation and innovation (Abdel Aziz & Rizkallah, 2015). This
study also suggests that regular team meetings and performance feedback play key role in
promoting employees interest in work involvement program. Moreover, Pollay and other
colleagues (1976) indicate that the participatory process in terms of horizontal power-
sharing and decision making promote a self-adaptive organisational learning process.
Consistent with this study, the current study suggests that open-door policy and
management receptive to new ideas play significant role in promoting work involvement
programs. Moreover, this study also suggests that employees perceived themselves as
contributing to organisational goals beyond their job requirement have higher interest in
work involvement programs. In this regard, Vandenberg et al. (1999) stress that an
important aspect of creating a high-involvement culture is to create the perception among
employees that they are indeed involved by providing a broad range of opportunities for
them to contribute beyond job requirements. The findings of this study also indicate that
flexible communication and joint consultation between employees and management play
244
crucial role in promoting employee involvement culture. In support of this finding,the
literature suggests that two- way communication and joint consultation are key
requirements for the successful development of an employee involvement culture ((Lawler,
1992; Ackers, Marchington, Wilkinson, & Goodman, 1992). Moreover, the current study
also suggests that employee interest in work involvement and their intention to turnover
are negatively associated. Evans and Davis (2005) argue that an employee involvement
culture promotes communication and cooperation that in turn reduces employee turnover
and enhances organisational performance. In a cross-sectional study of three service sector
organisations in Canada, Boudrias et al. (2010) identify the supervisor’s ability to
effectively communicate organisational objectives and relevant job information as
instrumental in enhancing levels of employee involvement. Appelbaum and other
colleagues (2015) conclude that a culture of trust and open communication is necessary for
the development of an employee involvement culture. Vandenberg and other colleagues(
1999) suggest that employees’ perception towards work involvement plays a key role. They
stressed that not only HR practices but also organisational culture play role in developing
employees’ positive perception. The finding of the current research also support the notion
that employee autonomy in terms of freedom of decision making helps to create employee
interest in work involvement programs. Short and Rinehart (1992) support the need for
reducing the barriers to autonomy by identifying six dimensions of teacher empowerment,
which include the level of teacher involvement in decisions involving their work and
teachers’ perceptions that they have autonomy over their work. For example, Bogler and
Somech (2005) also find that teachers who are involved in decision-making related either
to their classroom or more broadly to the organisation exhibited more engaged behaviour
with both their students and their colleagues. Consistent with this literature, the current
study suggests that the collaboration within work units motivates employees to engage in
work involvement programs and helps to get things done. The findings suggest that
employees who engage in collaboration highly show their interest in work involvement
programs. The study findings also suggest that employees who perceive that their job roles
are valued by others in the organisation show interest in employee involvement programs.
Buch and Shelnutt (1995) report that employees who felt that management had little
interest in their ideas about implementing an employee involvement programme at their
245
university experienced reduced interest and sense of empowerment in the implementation
process.
Table 88 also indicates that there is a significant association between management practices
and employee interest in employee involvement programs. For example, the relationship
between management practices and employee interest in employee involvement program
found moderate and statistically significant (r=.402**). In the hypothesis 2, it was proposed
that employee interest in employee involvement program would positively relate to
management practices. However, the multiple linear regression co-efficient did not provide
support for the hypothesis 2 (p>.05). Based on this hypothesis, it can be said that
management practices in terms of top management support, top management role and top
management integrity may not significantly determine the employees’ interest on work
involvement programs. On the contrary, the literature indicates that first-line supervisors
play crucial role in building culture of employee involvement ( Bates, 2004). For example,
Osterman and other colleagues (2001) suggest that managers who act as coach also
encourage employees to have more flexibility and self-direction in performing their jobs.
However, the literature also suggests that management style may also constrain employee
involvement. For example, micromanagers can create a sense of incompetence in
employees and reduce their sense of intrinsic motivation ( Lawler, 1992).
Within the management practices in terms of top management role, top management
integrity as a single management practice was found to be moderately correlated with
employee interest in involvement programs in this study(r=.273**; see in the appendix G).
This suggests that top management integrity in terms of their ethical behaviour play a
statistically moderate role in developing employee interest in work involvement programs.
As the correlation between employee interest in involvement and organizational
values/system/policies was found to be moderate (r=.346**) in this study, it can be argued
that organisational values/system/policies is considered as an another important factor that
promote employee interest in work involvement programs in the organizations. In
hypothesis 3, it was proposed that employee interest in employee involvement program
246
would positively relate to organisational values/system/ policies. Both the correlational and
the multiple linear regression provide support for hypothesis 3 (p<.001). The finding of the
current study is also consistent with the past studies. For example, Mathews and other
colleagues ( 2003) indicate that structural organisational factors such as fluidity of
information sharing practices facilitate work involvement. One of the items of the current
study suggests that information availability in every level of the organisation also facilitates
the employee interest in work involvement programs. The literature also indicates that the
use of small groups and horizontal power-sharing also increase employee involvement
(Pollay et al., 1976; Buch & Shelnutt, 1995). While the literature suggests that flexible
organisational structures and culture are important factors promoting a high-involvement
culture (Gunderson et al., 2005; Neal, Tromley, Lopez, & Russell, 1995), the finding of the
current study suggests that organisations with clear-cut goals and objectives facilitate
employee interest in work involvement programs. This study also suggests that employees
who have a feeling of loyalty to towards their organisation are more interested in work
involvement programs. In support of this finding Appelbaum and other colleagues ( 2014)
conclude that trust and open communication play crucial role in building a culture of work
involvement.
Table 88 also indicates that there is a significant association between work environment
and employee interest in employee involvement programs. For example, the relationship
between work environment and employee interest in employee involvement program found
moderate and statistically significant (r=.295**). In hypothesis 4, it was proposed that
employee interest in employee involvement program would positively relate to work
environment. However, the multiple linear regression co-efficient did not provide support
for hypothesis 4 (p>.05). Based on this hypothesis, it can be said that work environment
may not significantly determine the employees’ interest on work involvement programs.
On the contrary, one study finds a positive association between work environment quality
and increased level of participation in the workplace ( Knudsen, Markey, and Simpkin,
2003). In this regard, the same study finds that teachers who face a bad work environment
demand more participation in their workplace whereas the demand for participation is low
where teachers enjoy good working environment. While the literature found the a strong
247
positive association between the employee interest in work involvement programs and their
work environment, the findings of this research do not support the past research outcomes.
All the control variables except the length of the service were found statistically
insignificant in terms of their associated with the outcome variable. For example, in
hypotheses 7 & 8, it was proposed that current union membership and age will be positively
related to employee interest in work involvement programs. However, the multiple
regression co-efficient did not provide any support of these hypotheses (p>.05). Although
the literature suggests that employees over time may resist the implementation of employee
involvement initiatives (Delaney & Godard, 2001), the findings of this study find no
association between age and work involvement programs.
On the contrary, in hypothesis 6, it was proposed that employee length of service will be
negatively related to employee interest in work involvement programs. The co-efficient of
multiple regression provides support of the hypothesis ( p>.01) which suggest that
employees who have been working in the same organisation for long time may not show
an interest in employee involvement programs. On the contrary, the literature suggests that
employees’ engagement increased as their length of service increased (White, 2011). For
example, one study conducted in China suggested that long-service employees increased
their engagement (Zenget et al., 2009). Moreover, some studies did not find any
relationship between employees’ length of service and the level of employee involvement
(DiPietro and Pizam, 2008; Kim et al., 2009). In this regard, it can be argued that the idea
of considering the length of service as a control variable is also supported by the past
studies.
Overall, the multiple regression of this study suggests clearly that supportive work
practices and organisational values/system/polices are the important factors for
understanding the conditions that promote employee interest in work involvement
programs in the organisation. Although most of the control variables were statistically
insignificant, the length of service of employees to the organisation was found statistically
significant which suggests that employees with higher service duration are reluctant to
248
show interest in work involvement programs. The difference between the current study
findings and the literature may be that the current study examines unionized employees
while the studies cited deal with non-union employees.
While two variables such as turnover intention and work intensification were not included
in the regression model, the correlational analysis (see the table 88) suggests that both these
variables are significantly correlated with the outcome variable. For example, table 88
includes bivariate correlations between employee interest in work involvement programs
and turnover intention and work intensification. Turnover intention was found to be
negatively moderately correlated with employee interest in work involvement programs
(r=-.400**, p<.01). This suggests that the higher the higher the employee interest in
employee involvement programs, the lower their turnover intention. Moreover, employees’
perception of work intensification as a ploy to obtain a higher level of work involvement
was found to be negatively correlated(r=-.245**, p<.01). This suggests that employees in
the organisation do not perceive that employee involvement initiatives by the employers
would intensify their work process.
7.6 Conclusion
This chapter discusses the qualitative and quantitative findings presented in Chapters 6 and
7. Results and conclusions are identified and discussed for the central research question
and sub-questions. Conclusions to the study and recommendations for policies and
practices are presented in Chapter 8.
249
250
CHAPTER EIGHT
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this chapter is to draw conclusions about the research questions based on
the results in Chapter 7. Implications for theory, policy, and practice are also discussed
along with limitations of the study and directions for future research.
In recent years there has been a recognition that higher education institutions in North
America need to become more flexible and responsive to their stakeholders.However,
compared to industry,these organisations are still very slow in adopting innovations to meet
the challenges of the 21st century.Since the beginning of the 1990s, demographic, global,
economic, political, technological, and societal forces have been creating the need for
alteration in traditional administrative and teaching approaches in higher education
institutions. Higher education institutions in North America are now confronted with many
environmental challenges which require them to move to more progressive, high-
involvement approaches to managing employees (McRoy & Gibbs, 2009).
There is a groundswell of opinion from various stakeholders that higher education
institutions need to adopt an entrepreneurial spirit to better prepare students for the business
world. The implication of this paradigm shift is that the role of the professor must change
from being a conduit for information to being a cognitive coach.The new model of
education requires a higher degree of involvement and interaction between professor and
students (Ramaley, 2014).
The challenge for higher education institutions is to try to adapt unionised, highly
bureaucratic institutions based on centralised decision-making to a new organisational
structure and culture that promotes employees’ involvement in their jobs and broader
organisational initiatives.
There has been relatively little research done on the subject of promoting a culture of
faculty involvement in unionised higher education institutions. More specifically, in this
251
context, relatively less attention has been paid to the factors that will promote or constrain
a higher level of involvement in higher education faculty to effectively meet the various
external challenges identified in this section. Building on the existing literature spanning
four decades on employee involvement in manufacturing and service sectors, this study
examines the specific factors that promote and constrain higher education faculty’s
involvement in their work and in broader organisational activities.Another key aspect of
the study examines whether the factors promoting and constraining the successful
implementation of employee involvement initiatives differ significantly from those
suggested in the literature for manufacturing and service environments given the very
different internal and external environments acting on these organisations. Much of the
literature has examined success factors in implementing employee involvement
programmes from union and management perspectives.This study provides additional
dimensions to the discussion in the literature by examining perceptions of the factors both
promoting and constraining faculty involvement from the faculty stakeholder perspective.
The present study uses a qualitative exploratory approach followed by a survey designed
to explore the factors promoting and constraining faculty involvement within the context
of a case study of a Canadian higher education organisation.Twenty-two faculty were
initially interviewed in an exploratory study at the case study college, on the basis of themes
identified in the construct of employee involvement identified in Chapter 3.The results of
this study were followed up with a survey of faculty across the college designed to further
explore the key employee involvement themes identified in the qualitative study.Data from
the survey were tabulated and analysed using descriptive statistics generated by the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).The results were used to answer four
research questions: (a) What are the factors that account for the success and failure of
employee involvement initiatives with respect to faculty in unionised organisations in
higher education? (b) What are employee perceptions of the benefits of an organisation that
promotes employee involvement? (c) Can a culture of employee involvement and unionism
coexist in the context of higher education? (d) Do individual differences in faculty
demographics have an impact on faculty perceptions on the value of employee involvement
and the desire to become more involved?
252
8.1Research Results and Conclusions
8.1.1 Results and Conclusions for Central Research Question What are the factors that account for the success and failure of employee involvement initiatives
with respect to faculty in unionised organisations in higher education?
A key factor identified in the study as promoting involvement is the ability of faculty to
have a high level of decision-making around work practices.Also key is the creation of a
decentralised decision-making process in which work-related decisions are made by the
people at the level in the organisation with the most relevant knowledge to make these
decisions.
Another key factor promoting involvement is the use of small team-based work groups
meeting regularly, not only to share information but also to solve common work
problems.Social events are also identified in the study as effective in creating a climate of
camaraderie that fosters a culture of involvement. Faculty also feel involvement could be
promoted by making faculty accountable for broader organisational decisions, not just
work-related ones.Related to this factor is the need to involve faculty in developing
organisational goals as well as clear communication of organisational goals to faculty. The
study findings indicate that nontangible, intrinsic rewards are viewed as having a
significant impact in promoting involvement. Another significant influence on employee
involvement revealed by the study is middle managers who are accessible and
communicate regularly with staff,and who also have excellent interpersonal skills.Faculty
identified middle management as more instrumental in building involvement than either
top management or subject or programme coordinators.
Key among constraints on faculty involvement is the very nature of a collective agreement.It is perceived as
limiting faculty’s autonomy with respect to types of courses they were assigned to teach.In addition, the
collective agreement is also identified as limiting faculty’s ability to participate to participate in joint
consultations with management or to create and participate in more entrepreneurial activities.Top-down
decision making by management coupled with one-way downward communication are also instrumental in
253
constraining faculty involvement.Interestingly, flexibility of working hours, while seen as a benefit in terms
of quality of working life, is identified as an obstacle to the development of a strong collegial culture, as
faculty worked on variable timetables and tended to teach and then work from home when not
teaching.Management style at the chair level is identified as having the most influence on faculty on a daily
basisand is perceived as a significant constraint.Management at this level is deemed to be authoritarian and
administrative in focus.Faculty identify a lack of connection to and infrequent communication with their
manager as key problems in fostering involvement.Another key constraint on faculty involvement is the lack
of rewards, either financial or nonfinancial.
A key conclusion from the results of the central research question is that intrinsic rewards
are as important in promoting a sense of involvement in unionised higher education
institutions as extrinsic and incentive rewards, or even more important.This finding may
be attributed to many factors.Limited avenues for promotion and limited budgets available
for developmental activities such as attending conferences, along with high wages and
benefits and no bonuses or stock options, mean that extrinsic rewards either are not
available or are not meaningful to white-collar faculty. Therefore, to develop more
affective commitment and citizenship behaviour in faculty, the organisation has to focus
on intrinsic rewards directed more towards fulfilling growth and developmental needs at
the higher level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, including self-esteem and self-
actualisation. Extrinsic rewards are of lesser importance in moving employees to higher
levels of involvement and organisational commitment than these intrinsic rewards. The
study also identified social events and small team-based work units as creating a sense of
teamwork that serves to promote employee involvement in a unionised white-collar
environment.
Another key contribution to the literature from the study is the importance of midlevel
management in influencing the employee’s desire to be more involved. The study
highlighted the need for midlevel managers to be accessible, to communicate regularly with
employees, and to have excellent interpersonal skills, which are more important functional
skills.Rather than a culture driven by top-down management, the study highlights the
importance of creating a culture of involvement from the bottomup, based on strong
middle-management leadership skills.
254
8.1.2 Results and Conclusions for Research Subquestion 1 What are employee perceptions of the benefits of a high-involvement organisation for both the
faculty and the organisation?
Sixty percent of faculty “mostly” or “strongly” agree that a key benefit is a better quality
of education for students.
Twohighly rated benefits of employee involvement by faculty are the opportunity for
personal growth and increase in self-esteem.Seventy-one percent of faculty “mostly” or
“strongly” agree that employee involvement initiatives would provide them with
opportunity for personal growth while sixty-one percent “mostly” or “strongly” agree that
EI initiatives would enhance feelings of self-esteem..
Sixty-five percent of faculty “mostly” or “strongly” agree that, in addition to a better
quality of education for students,benefits of EI initiatives include an increase in expertise
and current knowledge by faculty.Ostensibly, as EI initiatives such as training, knowledge
sharing through teams, and information sharing with management are implemented, faculty
are provided with both direct and tacit knowledge concerning their work.
At least 55% of faculty “agree” or “strongly agree” that there are some significant
intrinsic benefits of EI initiatives, including job satisfaction, increased affective
commitment, and stronger desire to go above and beyond job requirements in helping the
organisation to achieve its goals.
Sixty percent of faculty “mostly” or “strongly” agree that EI initiatives can lead to higher
faculty productivity and more innovation in teaching.
One may conclude from the results of the study regarding research subquestion 1 that
employee involvement initiatives are deemed to be beneficial for both the organisation and
faculty in terms of better quality of education, employee growth, and increased job-
255
satisfaction.However, the challenge for the organisation in implementing a successful
programme is to promote the programme to their employee and union stakeholders in an
effective manner to ensure acceptance.Another challenge as identified in the literature is to
ensure that employee involvement initiatives are not imported wholesale from private
manufacturing and service environments to unionised public-sector institutions.Instead,
consideration must be given to the nature of the work, the employee, and the culture of the
organisation in which these practices will be implemented.For example, flexible work
schedules and workplace, self-managed teams, and focus groups may be more effective in
higher education that the use of incentive compensation.
8.1.3 Results and Conclusions for Research Subquestion 2 Can high involvement and unionism coexist in the context of higher education?
Most noteworthy of the findings around this question is that 40% to 48% of respondents
were neutral; that is, they selected “neither agree or disagree” for their responses to a
majority of the questions on this issue, as reflected in Table 79.This is perhaps not
surprising as in many questions faculty were asked to comment on probable responses from
both the union and the organisation with respect to these questions and took a neutral down-
the-middle stance since they had no direct information on the issues from either
perspective.
Notwithstanding the above, there are significant levels of agreement and disagreement on
some issues that are noteworthy.Thirty-three percent of faculty “mostly” or “strongly”
agree that the union would be in favour of implementing employee involvement
programmes.On an even more positive note, 45% feel that the organisation would seek the
consent of the union before implementing such a programme. Thirty-five percent of faculty
also “mostly”or“strongly” agree that the presence of a union would not affect the success
of an employee involvement programme, while 30% believe that the union would in fact
help the organisation to implement such a programme. Sixty percent “mostly” or
“strongly” disagree that the union would be weakened both in union-member relations and
in its ability to influence the workplace.
256
The study’s findings indicate that faculty believe that the union would be in favour of
implementing employee involvement initiatives and would not feel threatened or weakened
by the introduction of these initiatives.Further, on balance, faculty, as union members, are
not distrusting of attempts by management to introduce employee involvement initiatives
and perceive a degree of trust between faculty and management.While these findings are
supported by the literature as discussed in Section 7.4 in Chapter 7, there are challenges to
a successful partnership between union and management in adopting employee
involvement initiatives, including a traditional adversarial relationship between union
andmanagement, particularly in public-sector organisations. In addition, restructuring of
public-sector organisations over time has meant that workplace change processes have
been decentralised to local management and union representatives who may not be capable
of dealing with implementation of change processes.
257
8.1.4 Results for Research Subquestion 3 Do individual differences in faculty demographics have an impact on faculty perceptions of the
value of employee involvement and the desire to become more involved?
Approximately 70% of both male and female faculty members indicate that they would be
interested in the introduction of employee involvement initiatives.
The data also indicate that there is a strong correlation between the degree of interest by
faculty in employee involvement initiatives and their age and years in the organisation and
in the union.The results of all three variables measured against degree of involvement show
a significant decrease in the interest of employee involvement initiatives as faculty increase
in age, as well as length of time in the organisation and the union.With respect to years in
the organisation, there is a 50% decrease in interest between the youngest and oldest age
brackets.With respect to union membership, the percent interest in the introduction of
employee involvement initiatives declines by 50% for those in the union for more than 20
years compared to those who have less than one year of membership.With respect to age,
faculty level of interest in employee involvement initiatives generally declines about 40%
from the youngest to the oldest age bracket.
The data from the study related to teaching experience are highly comparable to the data
reflecting the number of years in the organisation.
The highest level of interest in employee involvement activities was displayed by faculty
at the master’s level, comprising approximately half of the faculty, in contrast to much less
interest expressed by those with a bachelor’s or PhD degree.
The data on ethnicity revealed that South Asians and Chinese showed the most interest in
the introduction of employee involvement initiatives, while Caucasian and Filipino faculty
showed the least interest.
258
The study results indicate that gender per se has no significant impact on receptivity to
change.Another finding is that faculty generally have a high sense of intrinsic motivation
and are inclined to view the introduction of employee involvement initiatives in a positive
manner.The literature does identify females as more likely to embrace employee
involvement initiatives, as they involve teamwork, communication, and connectedness,and
women tend to place a greater value on relationships in general (Cross & Madsen, 1997).
A significant result of this study is that interest in employee involvement initiatives
decreases asfaculty increase in age and tenure in the organisation and in the union.Scholarly
research, on the other hand, had identified a direct positive correlation between increasing
age, tenure, and level of involvement in nonunion organisations. It may be concluded that
membership in a union may have a moderating effect in older workers.
The study results regarding qualifications of faculty indicate that level of affective
commitment is based to some degree on length of time spent in the organisation, as newer
members and older ones who have progressed up the chain have less affective commitment
than members with midlevel qualifications.
8.2 Implications for Theory
The construct used in this study (see Table 94 for a restatement of the construct), based on
a synthesis of literature as discussed in the literature review in Chapter 2, identifies the use
of rewards as akey component of successful employee involvement initiatives in
manufacturing and other types of private, nonunion organisations.These havetypically
beengiven primarily in the form of monetary rewards such as bonuses, incentives, and
profit-sharing, and these types of extrinsic rewards have been reflective of theories on
employee involvement and employee motivation.For example both Lawler (1992) and
Ackers, Marchington, Wilkinson, and Goodman (1992) proposed financial rewards as a
key component of employee involvement programmes.
259
Existing literature in this area has focused on achievement of organisational objectives
which are rewarded with programmes such as gain sharing, profit-sharing and stock
ownership (R. E. Walton, 1985).This study expands the existing literature on rewards by
highlightingthe importance of the use of intrinsic rewards in engaging and motivating
unionised white-collar employees in higher education.Extrinsic rewards are of lesser
importance in moving unionised employees whose lower-order needs for security have
been satisfied by high wages and levels of benefits to higher levels of involvement and
organisational commitment than intrinsic rewards that fulfill their needs for self-esteem
and self-actualisation as defined by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Contrary to the one-size-
fits-all extrinsic approach to rewards proposed by the various theorists in the literature
presented in Chapter 2, the study highlights the importance of determining employee
demographics when designing reward programmes to promote employee involvement.
The study also emphasises the importance of the midlevel manager to a greater degree than
is commonly held in the literature.Theories of employee involvement such as those of
Bélanger (2001, in Gunderson, Ponak, & Taras, 2005), Kahn (1990), and Lawler (1992)
focus on the roles of managersas disseminators of information whose key tasks are to
provide employees with relevant and timely information and to design their work to
provide them with autonomy.In support of the existing literature, the study results indicate
the importance of a more inclusive approach by management to generate employee
involvement basedon the concept of participative decision-making as espoused by scholars
such as Gruman and Saks (2011).However, in contrast to existing literature, the study
highlights the need formoreinterpersonal actions by supervisors and managers seeking to
create a higher level of employee involvement through coaching and open-door policies
that aim to engage employees at the affective level with respect to their jobs.Among other
negative organisational consequences, lack of supervisor support has been linked to
You are being asked to participate in a research project entitled, Factors that Promote and Constrain the Involvement of Unionised Faculty in Their Jobs. This study will involve a cross-section of faculty in a large community college. The purpose of this research project is to develop an understanding of the factors which both promote and constrain faculty employee involvement and to identify strategies for increasing the level of faculty employee involvement in the college. PROCEDURES INVOLVED IN RESEARCH The interview will take approximately one hour and will be conducted at a time and location most convenient for you. Interviews will take place in a location that will not allow co-workers, friends, etc. to learn of your role as a research participant. Interviews will follow an interview guide. The questions are designed to gain an understanding of the factors that promote and constrain your degree of involvement both in your job and college related activities. Examples of the questions you will be asked are:
271
• What are the benefits to you from working in an organisation that promotes a culture of employee involvement?
• What can the organisation do to promote a greater degree of employee
involvement in your job?
• What strategies, structures or policies prevent you from being more involved at work?
• What strategies, structures or policies encourage a greater degree of involvement
in your work? With your permission, the interview will be tape recorded and transcribed. You do not have to answer any question that you prefer to skip. POTENTIAL BENEFITS The benefits of this study lie in the contribution it will make towards a better understanding of the challenges to, and opportunities for a higher degree of faculty involvement in both job and organisation related areas. Results of the study will identify strategies which may be used by the college to improve the levels of employee involvement in the college for the benefit of the organisation, faculty, and students. CONFIDENTIALITY Every step will be taken to ensure your confidentiality should you decide to participate in the research project. Names will not be used in my written work and no information will be used that could potentially identify you as a research participant. Interviews will take place in a location where we can speak privately. All data related to the study will be locked away and the researcher is the only person who will have access to the data which will be destroyed one year after completion of the study. PARTICIPATION Your participation in this study would be voluntary. You would have the right to turn off the tape recorder at any point in time, slow down the pace of the interview, skip any questions you would prefer not to answer, or end the interview entirely. You will also have the right to ask the researcher that any portion of the interview, or the interview in its entirety be removed from the project. If you choose to withdraw from the study, all notes, tapes and transcripts connected to your participation will be destroyed unless you indicate otherwise.
272
RESULTS I expect to have the study completed by approximately June 2010. If you would like
to receive a summary of the study results, please let me know and I will provide you with a copy. The ethical conduct of this research
Griffith University conducts research in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. If potential participants have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project they should contact the Manager, Research Ethics on 3875 5585 or [email protected]. If you are interested in participating in this research study, please contact the researcher, Indira Somwaru at [email protected], as soon as possible. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Indira Somwaru PhD candidate, Griffith Business School Griffith University
273
APPENDIX B
CONSENT FORM USED IN INTERVIEWS WITH RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
CONSENT FORM PROJECT TITLE: Factors that Promote and Constrain the Involvement of Unionised Faculty in Their Jobs. INVESTIGATOR: Indira Somwaru, PhD Candidate
Griffith Business School Nathan Campus Griffith University 170 Kessels Road Nathan, Queensland 4111 [email protected]
SUPERVISOR OF RESEARCH PROJECT:
Robert Russell/Bradley Bowden Griffith Business School Nathan Campus Griffith University 170 Kessels Road Nathan, Queensland 4111 [email protected][email protected]
PURPOSE OF STUDY:
You are being asked to participate in a research project entitled, Factors that Promote and Constrain the Involvement of Unionised Faculty in Their Jobs. This study will involve a cross-section of faculty in a large community college. The purpose of this research project is to develop an understanding of the factors which both promote and constrain faculty employee involvement and to identify strategies for increasing the level of faculty employee involvement in the college. PROCEDURES INVOLVED IN RESEARCH The interview will take approximately one hour and will be conducted at a time and location most convenient for you. Interviews will take place in a location that will not allow co-workers, friends, etc. to learn of your role as a research participant. Interviews
will follow an interview guide. The questions are designed to gain an understanding of the factors that promote and constrain your degree of involvement both in your job and college related activities. Examples of the questions you will be asked are:
• What are the benefits to you from working in an organisation that promotes a culture of employee involvement?
• What can the organisation do to promote a greater degree of employee
involvement in your job?
• What strategies, structures or policies prevent you from being more involved at work?
• What strategies, structures or policies encourage a greater degree of involvement
in your work? With your permission, the interview will be tape recorded and transcribed. You do not have to answer any question that you prefer to skip. POTENTIAL BENEFITS The benefits of this study lie in the contribution it will make towards a better understanding of the challenges to, and opportunities for a higher degree of faculty involvement in both job and organisation related areas. Results of the study will identify strategies which may be used by the college to improve the levels of employee involvement in the college for the benefit of the organisation, faculty, and students. CONFIDENTIALITY Every step will be taken to ensure your confidentiality should you decide to participate in the research project. Names will not be used in my written work and no information will be used that could potentially identify you as a research participant. Interviews will take place in a location where we can speak privately. All data related to the study will be locked away and the researcher is the only person who will have access to the data which will be destroyed one year after completion of the study. PARTICIPATION Your participation in this study would be voluntary. You would have the right to turn off the tape recorder at any point in time, slow down the pace of the interview, skip any questions you would prefer not to answer, or end the interview entirely. You will also have the right to ask the researcher that any portion of the interview, or the interview in its entirety be removed from the project. If you choose to withdraw from the study, all
275
notes, tapes and transcripts connected to your participation will be destroyed unless you indicate otherwise. RESULTS
I expect to have the study completed by approximately June 2010. If you would like to receive a summary of the study results, please let me know and I will provide you with a copy.
If you have any questions or require more information about the research project itself, please contact the researcher Indira Somwaru, or the supervisor, Bob Russell at the above stated e-mail addresses.
THE ETHICAL CONDUCT OF THIS RESEARCH Griffith University conducts research in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. This project has been reviewed and has received ethical clearance from the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee If potential participants have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project they should contact the Manager, Research Ethics on 3875 5585 or [email protected]. CONSENT By signing below, I confirm that I have read and understood the information package and in particular have noted that:
• I understand that my involvement in this research will include a one hour interview with the researcher
• I have had any questions answered to my satisfaction; • I understand the risks involved; • I understand that there will be no direct benefit to me from my participation in this
research • I understand that my participation in this research is voluntary • I understand that if I have any additional questions I can contact the research team • I understand that I am free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty; • I understaand that I can contact the Manager, Research Ethics, at Griffith
University Human Research Ethics Committee on 3735 5585 (or [email protected]) if I have any concerns about the ethical conduct of the project; and
• I agree to participate in the project. Printed Name: __________________________ Signature: ______________________ Date: ______________________________
276
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW SCRIPT
Personal Interviews with the Faculty PROJECT TITLE: Factors that Promote and Constrain the Involvement of
Unionised Faculty in Their Jobs RESEARCHER: Indira Somwaru
INTRODUCTION
1- As written in the consent form, your legal name will not be used in any of the research generated from this interview. Instead, an alias/ pseudonym will be used. Could you please give me an alias or would you like me to assign one to you?
Alias to be used in research project __________________________________
2- What is your age bracket ?
Gender: Male Female Age: 20–39 40–59 60 and over
SECTION 1
WORK PRACTICES The following questions relate to the work practices for faculty.
1. What do you see as the critical components of your job?
2. What degree of autonomy do you have in performing your critical job duties?
High Medium Low • Explain your answer • How could autonomy in your job be increased?
277
3. What degree of accountability (final authority) do you have for fulfilling the requirements of your job?
High Moderate Limited
Explain your answer
4. In your view, to what extent is there opportunity for job-related problem-solving through groups, teams, or other quality improvement processes (e.g., quality circles) Extensive Moderate Limited None • Describe the factors that explain your answer. • How could job-related problem-solving opportunities be increased?
5. With respect to your job:
Are you given timely and relevant information required for effective performance in your job (e.g., team briefings)?
• If yes, what are the methods that facilitate effective communication? • If no, what can be done to improve the communication process? With respect to broader college activities and initiatives (e.g., strategic plans): Are you given timely and relevant information in order to be more effective in yourjob? • If yes, what are the methods that facilitate effective communication? • If no, what can be done to improve the communication process?
6. To what extent do you seek opportunities to contribute to furthering the organisation’s goals beyond your job parameters?
Regularly Occasionally Limited Never
• Explain your answer.
What could be done by the college to promote greater organisational citizenship on your part?
278
7. Have workload expectations decreased, stayed the same or increased over the course of your employment?
• Explain your answer.
8. What type of impact has workload had on your involvement in your job? 9. What type of impact has workload had on your involvement in broader college
activities?
10. Have expectations regarding the requirements of the professors job remained consistent or changed over time?
If so, how has change affected your involvement in your job? In broader college activities?
11. To what degree does your job provide work-life balance?
Low Moderate High • Explain your answer
• How does your level of work-life balance affect your involvement in your job? In broader college activities?
RESOURCES AVAILABLE The next set of questions is designed to gain a better understanding of the availability of resources for faculty to maximise job performance.
12. Do you receive adequate training and development to maximise your job performance?
• If yes, what factors facilitate your acquisition of training and development
opportunities?
• If no, what factors constrain your acquisition of the necessary skills and knowledge?
• What could the college do to support you in developing your human capital? MANAGEMENT STYLE The next set of questions is designed to better understand the management style with respect to employee involvement (as defined by Appendix A).
279
13. In general, how would you rate the organisation’s management in promoting employee involvement?
Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Poor Very Poor Please explain you rating.
14. What are the most effective aspects of management style that you have experienced?
15. What areas could be improved?
16. Is there joint consultation with management on work and organisational
decisions?
17. What would management be doing in an organisation that promoted employee involvement?
REWARD SYSTEMS
18. Have you ever been rewarded for good job performance? • If yes, what was the reward?
19. What are your views on the organisation’s current reward system with respect to
encouraging good job performance??
• Is there anything you would change to improve the reward system?
20. What are your views on the organisation’s current reward system with respect to encouraging employee contributions beyond job requirements? • Is there anything you would change to improve it?
21. How does the organisation’s reward system affect your motivation and
involvement in your job?
22. What are the intrinsic rewards that you think might accrue to yourself from working in a high involvement organisation ?
ORGANISATION STRUCTURE/ STRATEGIES/ POLICIES
23. In your opinion what organisational structures foster a culture of high involvement in this organisation?
280
24. What organisational structures prevent the development of a high involvement culture?
25. In your opinion what organisational strategies foster a culture of high
involvement in this organisation?
26. What organisational strategies prevent the development of a high involvement culture?
27. In your opinion what organisational policies foster a culture of high involvement
in this organisation?
28. What organisational policies prevent the development of a high involvement culture?
CONCLUSION
29. How would you rate the college with respect to fostering a high involvement culture? Excellent Very Good Average Poor
• Provide 3 key examples to support your rating.
30. What do you see as obstacles to greater employee involvement? 31. What factors facilitate your involvement in your job? In broader college
activities? 32. How might the college benefit from a more highly involved workforce? 33. What can the organisation do to promote a greater degree of employee
involvement?
34. Is there anything else about working at the college that you would like to add to this interview that was not previously addressed?
281
APPENDIX D
EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT SURVEY
Employee Involvement Survey Griffith University
Department of Employment Relations
and Human Resources Nathan, QLD, Australia
282
GENERAL INFORMATION AND CONSENT:
My name is Indira Somwaru and I am a Seneca faculty member completing my doctoral thesis at Griffith University in Australia. The thesis is based on a study of the factors that affect the degree of faculty involvement in their work. It is being conducted for academic/scholarly purposes only. The objective is to identify the factors in your work environment and the organisation in general that both promote and constrain faculty engagement in your jobs and broader organisational activities. This study will add to information on human resource practices in academic institutions as perceived by faculty. This information is sought through a self-administered questionnaire. It will take you about twenty minutes to complete this questionnaire. Participation in this workforce survey is entirely voluntary on your part. You are under no obligation to participate. Deciding not to participate will not involve any penalties or the loss of any benefits from your employer. Should you choose to participate you are also under no obligation to answer any questions that you would rather not respond to. You are also under no obligation to complete the questionnaire should you decide not to. The completion and return of the questionnaire will be accepted as an expression of consent to participate. All information collected through the survey will be treated in an anonymous manner and the questionnaire will bear no marks (signatures, etc.), which could be used to identify respondents. Please do not write your name or other identifying information on the questionnaire. Completed surveys will be archived for a five (5) year period, after which they will be destroyed. The results of the survey will be tabulated in an aggregate fashion that will ensure that no individual respondents can be identified. The results of aggregate data analysis may be disseminated in scholarly journals and shared with the participating organisations. Should you have any questions about the project, please contact the researcher at the below telephone number or e-mail address. Indira Somwaru Telephone: 416-491-5050, ext. 26322 Email: [email protected] Griffith University requires that all participants be informed that if they have any complaints concerning the manner in which a research project is conducted it may be given to the researcher, or, if an independent person is preferred, to: Manager, Research Ethics, Office for Research, Bray Centre, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, Qld 4111, Australia Telephone +61 7 38755585 or [email protected] PLEASE COMPLETE AND RETURN THE SURVEY IN THE ATTACHED ENVELOPE THROUGH INTEROFFICE MAIL TO ME BY July 15, 2012.
Please note that by completing and returning the survey you provide your consent as stated below to participate in this research.
CONSENT
By completing the survey, I confirm that I have read and understood the information presented and in particular that:
I understand that my involvement in this research will involve answering the questions in the survey form.
I understand that my participation in this research is voluntary.
I understand that I can contact the researcher with any questions I may have on the survey.
I understand that I can contact the Manager, Research Ethics, Office for Research, Bray Centre, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, Qld 4111, Australia
Telephone +61 7 38755585 or [email protected] about the ethical conduct of the project
I agree to participate in the project.
284
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Q 1) Are you:
1 Male 2 Female
Q 2) How many years have you worked in this organisation?
1 Less than one year 2 One to five years 3 Six to ten years 4 Eleven to twenty years 5 More than twenty years
Q 3 ) What is your total teaching experience with this and any other educational institution?
1 Less than one year 2 One to five years 3 Five to ten years 4 Ten to twenty years 5 More than twenty years
Q 5) If you are currently completing a degree please circle the relevant one below.
1 Bachelors 2 Masters 3 PhD
Q 6 Are you a member of an employee trade union that covers your organisation?
Yes (if yes please go to question 7)
No (if no please go to question 8)
285
Q 7) How long have you been a member of the union?
1 Less than 1 year 2 One to five years 3 Five to ten years 4 Ten to twenty years 5 More than 20 years
Q 8) Please identify your age range below.
1 25-29 years 2 30-39 years 3 40 to 49 years 4 50 to 59 years 5 60 +
Q 9) What is your employment status?
1 Full time 2 Partial Load 3 Other
Q 10) What is your ethnicity?
1 Chinese 2 Caucasian 3 South Asian 4 Filipino 5 Latin American 6 Other
286
SECTION 2: WORK PROCESSES AND PRACTICES
Q 11) Research indicates that the following high involvement practices are used by many organisations to increase employee involvement in their work. Please indicate the extent to which the practices below are present in your work environment. ( Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
Q 12) Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
Increased use of employee involvement practices such as employee suggestion programmes and rewards for performance would lead to:
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree Don't know
/ not relevant
a) More innovative teaching 1 2 3 4 5 9
b) Increased student retention 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) Higher faculty productivity 1 2 3 4 5 9
d) Better reputation for the organisation 1 2 3 4 5 9
e) Increased employee commitment 1 2 3 4 5 9
Not present
Slightly present
Somewhat present
Mostly present
strongly present
Don't know / not
relevant
a) Joint labour management committees 1 2 3 4 5 9 b) Employee suggestion programmes 1 2 3 4 5 9 c) Problem-solving teams 1 2 3 4 5 9 d) Self-directed work groups 1 2 3 4 5 9 e) Information-sharing with employees 1 2 3 4 5 9 f) Rewards for performance (financial or non-financial) 1 2 3 4 5 9 g) Performance feedback from manager 1 2 3 4 5 9 h) Formal opportunities for socialising 1 2 3 4 5 9 i) Flexibility in decision-making about how work is done 1 2 3 4 5 9 j) Coaching and mentoring from manager 1 2 3 4 5 9
287
Increased use of employee involvement practices such as employee suggestion programmes and rewards for performance would lead to:
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree Don't know
/ not relevant
f) Better quality of education for students 1 2 3 4 5 9
g) Professors with more current knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 9
l) Increased feelings of friendship with co-workers 1 2 3 4 5 9
m) Improved communication with management 1 2 3 4 5 9
n) More authority and responsibility 1 2 3 4 5 9
Q 13) Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
Increased use of employee involvement practices such as employee suggestion programmes and rewards for performance would lead to:
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree Don't know
/ not relevant
a) Increased uncertainty in my work environment 1 2 3 4 5 9
b) The need to develop new skills in my work 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) The need for higher levels of training to perform effectively 1 2 3 4 5 9
d) Increased layoffs for faculty 1 2 3 4 5 9
e) The need for less management control of my work activities 1 2 3 4 5 9
f) Increased level of faculty stress 1 2 3 4 5 9
g) Increased conflict among faculty 1 2 3 4 5 9
288
Q 14) Rank the factors below in terms of their significance as a driver for the organisation in adopting employee involvement initiatives (Rank from highest (1) to lowest(5).)
1 Increased competition for students ___ 2 Student desire for more innovative teaching ___ 3 Availability of technology to support innovation ___ 4 Faculty desire for a more involved workplace ___ 5 Ability of the organisation to generate funding ___
Q 15) To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
“ The use of employee involvement initiatives would be a manipulative ploy by management to intensify the work process”.
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree
Don't know / not
relevant
1 2 3 4 5 9
Q 16) Please rate the importance of the following items to you. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
Not important
Slightly important
Somewhat important
Very important
Extremely important
Don't know / not
relevant
a) Freedom to design, deliver and evaluate courses 1 2 3 4 5 9 b) Opportunities for job related problem solving(e.g., regular
team meetings) 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) Regular performance feedback 1 2 3 4 5 9 d) Opportunities to contribute to organisational goals
beyondjob requirements 1 2 3 4 5 9
e) Opportunities for professional development 1 2 3 4 5 9 f) Manager’s open-door policy 1 2 3 4 5 9 g) Management receptiveness to new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 9 h) Joint faculty and management consultation on work issues 1 2 3 4 5 9 i) Rewards for superior performance 1 2 3 4 5 9
289
Q 17) To what extent are each of the following items present in your current job? (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
Q 18) To what extent is your ability to influence decisions about each of the following present in your job? (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
j) Opportunities to socialise with peers at work 1 2 3 4 5 9
k) Information required to do the best possible job 1 2 3 4 5 9
l) Variety in job duties 1 2 3 4 5 9
Not present
Slightly present
Somewhat present
Very present
Extremely present
Don't know / not
relevant
a) Freedom to design, deliver and evaluate courses 1 2 3 4 5 9 b) Opportunities for job related problem solving(e.g., regular
team meetings) 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) Regular performance feedback 1 2 3 4 5 9 d) Opportunities to contribute to organisational goals
beyondjob requirements 1 2 3 4 5 9
e) Opportunities for professional development 1 2 3 4 5 9 f) Chair open-door policy 1 2 3 4 5 9 g) Management receptiveness to new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 9 h) Joint faculty and management consultation on work issues 1 2 3 4 5 9 i) Rewards for superior performance 1 2 3 4 5 9 j) Opportunities to socialise with peers at work 1 2 3 4 5 9
k) Information required to do the best possible job 1 2 3 4 5 9 l) Variety in job duties 1 2 3 4 5 9
Not present
Slightly present
Somewhat present
Very present
Extremely present
Don't know / not
relevant
a) The way your work is done 1 2 3 4 5 9
b) Ways of improving productivity 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) Quality of your work environment 1 2 3 4 5 9
290
Q 19) What are the 3 most important formal processes that allow you to have an influence at work? (Rank in order of importance from highest (1) to lowest (5).)
1 Team meetings ___ 2 One on one meetings with Chair/Co-ordinator ___ 3 Employee opinion surveys ___ 4 Town hall meetings ___ 5 Informal meetings with peers ___
Q 20) What are the 3 most significant factors which serve to limit autonomy in your job. ( Rank in order of importance from highest (1) to lowest (5).)
1 Collective agreement ___ 2 Chair approval of tests and exams ___ 3 Limited choices about subjects taught ___ 4 Team teaching of courses ___ 5 Curriculum requirements by professional bodies ___
Q 21) Please show how much you agree or disagree with each statement below. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree
Don't know / not
relevant
a) I feel my role is valued by the people I work with 1 2 3 4 5 9
b) I feel my role is valued by the organisation 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) Work units/schools seem to collaborate effectively to get things done 1 2 3 4 5 9
d) The organisation is generally quick to use improved work methods 1 2 3 4 5 9
e) Management is generally receptive to new ways of doing things suggested by faculty 1 2 3 4 5 9
d) Planning and scheduling of your work 1 2 3 4 5 9
e) The time it takes your department to get things done 1 2 3 4 5 9
f) The flexibility of your department’s operations 1 2 3 4 5 9
g) The goals and performance standards of your job 1 2 3 4 5 9
h) Who gets hired into your group 1 2 3 4 5 9
291
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree
Don't know / not
relevant
f) My current job gives me a sense of accomplishment 1 2 3 4 5 9
g) I know what performance expectations are related to my role 1 2 3 4 5 9
h) I have the information I need to do my job in the best possible way
1 2 3 4 5 9
i) I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what is normally expected to help this organisation be successful 1 2 3 4 5 9
j)When management says something you can really believe it is true 1 2` 3 4 5 9
k)I am primarily motivated in my job by internal needs such as opportunity for growth 1 2 3 4 5 9
l)In general getting the job you want is mostly a matter of luck 1 2 3 4 5 9
m)Hard work generally pays off in the end 1 2 3 4 5 9
n)There is sufficient collaboration with colleagues to share best practices and solve problems
Q 22) Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statements below. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree
Don't know / not
relevant
a) My workload (teaching, professional activities) is reasonable 1 2 3 4 5 9
b) I have enough time to do my daily work adequately 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) I have enough time for planning and development with respect to the courses I teach 1 2 3 4 5 9
d) My involvement in broader organisational activities (e.g., committees) is not limited by my workload 1 2 3 4 5 9
e) My job provides me with a satisfactory work life balance 1 2 3 4 5 9
f) The organisation provides adequate opportunities for meeting my social needs 1 2 3 4 5 9
g) I know what performance expectations are related to my job 1 2 3 4 5 9
292
SECTION 3: THE UNION AND EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT
Q 23) Please answer this question if you ticked Yes to Q. 6 indicating that you are a union member. As a union member, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statements below. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree
Don't know / not
relevant
a) I feel a sense of pride in being a part of the union 1 2 3 4 5 9
b) I feel that union and management work effectively to solve the organisations problems 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) The organisation would be in favour of implementing employee involvement programmes 1 2 3 4 5 9
d) The union would be in favour of implementing employee involvement programmes 1 2 3 4 5 9
e) The organisation would only implement an employee involvement programme with the consent of its union 1 2 3 4 5 9
f) The organisation would use an employee involvement programme to weaken the union 1 2 3 4 5 9
g) My loyalty is to my work, not the union 1 2 3 4 5 9
h) My values and the union’s values are not very similar 1 2 3 4 5 9
i) The issue of employee involvement is often discussed by the union 1 2 3 4 5 9
j)The presence of a union will not affect the success of an employee involvement programme 1 2 3 4 5 9
k)The union would help the company to implement an employee involvement programme 1 2 3 4 5 9
l)Very little of what the member ship wants is important to the union 1 2 3 4 5 9
293
Q 24) Please answer this question if you ticked Yes to Q. 6 indicating that you are a union member. Please indicate the extent to which you participate in union sponsored activities (e.g., union meetings). (Check one)
1 Frequently ___ 2 Occasionally ___ 3 Rarely ___ 4 Not at all ___
Q 25) Please indicate the extent to which you go above and beyond the requirements of your job (e.g., volunteering for committees). (Check one)
1 Frequently ___ 2 Occasionally ___ 3 Minimally ___ 4 Not at all ___
Q 26) Circle the number(s) corresponding to the statement which best describes your views:
1 An employee involvement culture would serve to increase my interest in job-relatedactivities (e.g., attendance at team meetings)
2 An employee involvement culture would serve to increase my interest in college-related activities beyond job requirements (e.g., attending graduation ceremonies)
3 An employee involvement culture would make no difference in my level of participation
Q27) With respect to your job please indicate how often you perform the actions below. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
On a regular basis
Frequently
Some times
Rarely Never Don't know / not
relevant
a) Make suggestions to improve quality or efficiency 1 2 3 4 5 9 b) Keep up to date with what is happening in the organisation 1 2 3 4 5 9 c) Notify your manager of potential work-related problems 1 2 3 4 5 9 d) Help out a fellow worker on the job
1 2 3 4 5 9
e) Attend most team meetings 1 2 3 4 5 9
294
Q 28) If employee involvement initiatives are implemented in the organisation I feel that the union should: (Check the statement that best reflects your views.)
1 Not be involved to maintain its independence ____ 2 Cooperate with management in implementing these
initiatives ____
Q 29) Please show how much you agree or disagree with each statement below. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
Q 30) For the following statement check the statement that comes closest to your views:
If the union endorsed the move to more employee involvement I would feel:
1 More favourable toward the union ____ 2 Less favourable toward the union ____ 3 The same as I currently feel toward the union ____
Q 31) I would be interested in the introduction of employee involvement initiatives in this organisation.
1 Yes ____ 2 No (go to next question) ____
Not present
Slightly present
Somewhat present
Mostly present
Strongly present
Don't know / not relevant
a) Introducing employee involvement initiatives would serve to weaken union member relations 1 2 3 4 5 9
b) Introducing employee involvement initiatives would serve to weaken the union’s influence on how work gets done 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) Introducing employee involvement initiatives would have no significant impact on current union member relationships 1 2 3 4 5 9
d) Introducing employee involvement initiatives would have no significant impact on the union’s influence on how work gets done
1 2 3 4 5 9
295
Q 32) What arethe 3 most significant factors which would limit your interest in employee involvement initiatives? ( Rank in order of significance from highest (1) to lowest (3).)
1 Waste of my time ___ 2 Strained relationship with co-workers ___ 3 Could weaken the union ___ 4 No additional benefit in doing my job ___ 5 Lack of management to the process ___
SECTION 4: REWARDS AND RECOGNITION
Q 33) Rank in order of importance the rewards below in terms of their effectiveness in increasing your desire to contribute above and beyond your job? (Rank from highest (1) to lowest (6).)
1 More freedom and opportunities regarding my work ___
2 Praise from my supervisor ___
3 Training and development opportunities ___
4 More challenging work assignments ___
5 Some form of public recognition ___
6 A token of appreciation (e.g., lunch) ___
SECTION 5: FUTURE GROWTH OPPORTUNITY
Q 34) In the past three years have you received formal training in the following areas?
Formal Training Received?
Yes No
Functional skills to do your job……………………. 1 2
Technical skills to do your job………………………. 1 2
Cross- training to do other jobs……………….... 1 2
Performance improvement training……………. 1 2
If you answered yes in any category, please go to Q 35/If no, go to Q 36.
296
Q 35) Please indicate the degree to which you feel your training has been effective by circling the number which best reflects your views.
Highly ineffective
Mostly ineffective
Neither effective
nor ineffective
Mostly effective
Highly effective
Don't know / not
relevant
a)Functional skills 1 2 3 4 5 9
b) Technical skills 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) Cross-training to do other jobs 1 2 3 4 5 9
d) Performance improvement training 1 2 3 4 5 9
Q 36) If training has been inadequate, rank in order of importance the following constraints on receiving adequate training in your job (Rank in order of importance from highest (1) to lowest (4).)
1 Time ___
2 Organisational budget constraints ___
3 Lack of knowledge of training available ___
4 Lack of customised training for my needs ___
Q 37) With respect to job performance, are you given regular performance feedback from management on your work?
1 Yes 2 No (go to Q 38)
Q 38) Rank in order of importance the following barriers to effective faculty performance feedback. (Rank in order of importance from highest (1) to lowest (4).)
1 Lack of a formal performance feedback process ___ 2 Lack of faculty time for reflection on teaching process ___ 3 Management not trained to give effective feedback ___ 4 Lack of union acceptance of formal feedback process ___
297
SECTION 6: WORK ENVIRONMENT Q 39) Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statements below. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views)
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree
Don't know / not
relevant
a) The classrooms I teach in are appropriate for my teaching needs. 1 2 3 4 5 9
b) The IT facilities in the classrooms I teach in are appropriate for my teaching needs. 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) I have the tools and equipment to perform my work effectively 1 2 3 4 5 9
d) My teaching schedule is varied and interesting from one semester to the next 1 2 3 4 5 9
e) Members of diverse groups are respected and valued in this organisation 1 2 3 4 5 9
h) I have the administrative support I need to perform my work effectively 1 2 3 4 5 9
Q 40) Do you ever suffer from symptoms of stress that are caused by your work?
1 Yes (go to Q 41) 2 No 3 Unsure
Q 41) Which of the following are the 3 most significant sources of stress for you? (Rank in order of importance from highest (1) to lowest (3).)
1 Resolving student issues ____ 2 Little time for planning and updating courses ____ 3 Bureaucratic policies and procedures related to teaching ____ 4 Ineffective communication channels ____ 5 Heavy teaching workload ____ 6 Repetitive work (teaching same courses repeatedly) ____ 7 Classroom challenges (cultural and language barriers) ____ 8 Other (Please specify) _______________________________________
298
SECTION 7: ORGANISATIONAL VALUES/SYSTEMS/POLICIES Q 42) Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statements below. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree
Don't know / not
relevant
a) The organisation has a real interest in the welfare of those who work here 1 2 3 4 5 9
b) The organisation is willing to help me if I need a special favour 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) If given the opportunity the organisation would take advantage of me 1 2 3 4 5 9
d) The organisation sets reasonable, clear-cut goals and objectives 1 2 3 4 5 9
e) Work activities are sensibly structured in this organisation 1 2 3 4 5 9
h) I feel loyal toward this organisation 1 2 3 4 5 9
i) Decisions in this organisation are made at the levels where the most adequate information is available
1 2 3 4 5
9
SECTION 8: MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Q 43)In general how much influence does each of the following groups have on what goes on in your department?
b) Middle level management (e.g., chairs) 1 2 3 4 5 9 c) Top management (e.g. deans, vice-presidents) 1 2 3 4 5 9
299
Q 44) Please show how much you agree or disagree with each statement below. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree
Don't know / not
relevant
a) Top management attitudes and behaviours are most important in establishing a participative climate for faculty 1 2 3 4 5 9
b) The attitudes and behaviours of department Chairs are most important in establishing a participative climate for faculty 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) Management sees its role as primarily administrative rather than as participants in fostering employee involvement
1 2 3 4 5 9
d) Management believes that faculty have the skills and knowledge necessary to improve organisational performance through employee involvement practices
1 2 3 4 5 9
e) Management would be receptive to the implementation of employee involvement practices 1 2 3 4 5 9
f) There is a high degree of trust between management and faculty 1 2 3 4 5 9
Q 45 ) Listed below are behaviours considered to be critical requirements for a successful Academic Chair. Please indicate the degree to which you feel each of the behaviours below is important. (Circle the number that best reflects your views.)
Not importan
t
Slightly importan
t
Somewhat
important
Very importan
t
Extremely important
Don't know / not
relevant
a) Receptiveness to new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 9 b) Knowledgeable about subjects taught by faculty 1 2 3 4 5 9 c) Expertise in management 1 2 3 4 5 9 d) Able to relate well to staff 1 2 3 4 5 9 e) Provides coaching and support 1 2 3 4 5 9 f) Manages by walking around 1 2 3 4 5 9 g) Shows respect for faculty 1 2 3 4 5 9 h) Flexible in assigning and scheduling work 1 2 3 4 5 9 i) Has information required to do the best possible job 1 2 3 4 5 9
300
Q 46) Listed below are factors which may cause mid and lower level management resistance to the implementation of employee involvement programmes? ( Rank in order of importance from highest (1) to lowest (4).)
1 Loss of managerial control over how work gets done ____ 2 Belief that faculty will not work in the best interests of the organisation ____ 3 Employees will avoid work ____ 4 Fear of management job loss ____
Q 47) Listed below are attributes considered to be critical for first line managers in high involvement workplaces. Rank these attributes in order of importance from highest (1) to lowest (5) these attributes in terms of how critical they are for managerial success in promoting a high involvement culture.
Q 48) Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statements below. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree
Don't know / not
relevant
a) Management believes that employees have the knowledge and skills to improve organisational performance 1 2 3 4 5 9
b) Management often models participative behaviours (e.g., asking for faculty input) 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) Management provides a clear line of sight for what I need to do succeed in my job 1 2 3 4 5 9
d) Management actively seeks out employee suggestions and opinions 1 2 3 4 5 9
e) Management consistently and frequently communicates their key leadership goals to faculty 1 2 3 4 5 9
h) Management uses a variety of communication channels to articulate these priorities to faculty 1 2 3 4 5 9
i) Management effectively accesses knowledge and skills of faculty in decision-making regarding faculty work activities 1 2 3 4 5 9
j) Top management has a clear vision which is effectively communicated to employees 1 2 3 4 5 9
301
Q 49) Research indicates that integrity displayed by management is a key driver of employee involvement. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statements below. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views)
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree
Don't know / not
relevant
a) The information I receive from management is accurate and timely 1 2 3 4 5 9
b) Management responds to unethical behaviour 1 2 3 4 5 9
c)There is congruence between management words and actions 1 2 3 4 5 9
Q 50) Which of the following most accurately reflects the amount of performance feedback provided to you by your manager (Check one).
1 Daily ____ 2 Weekly ____ 3 Monthly ____ 4 Annually ____ 5 Not at all ____
302
CONCLUSION
Q 51) Research indicates that the factors below are considered to be barriers to employee involvement in the organisation. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree that these factors are barriers to involvement. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
f) Management focus on administration instead of innovation 1 2 3 4 5 9
g) Limited face time with manager 1 2 3 4 5 9
h) Top down-decision making 1 2 3 4 5 9
i) Union management relations 1 2 3 4 5 9
j) Limited compensations options 1 2 3 4 5 9
Q 52) Listed below are factors considered to be critical requirements for successfully achieving greater levels of employee involvement. Please indicate how you agree or disagree that these factors are critical for creating a higher level of faculty job and organisational involvement. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree
Don't know / not
relevant
a) More opportunities for social interaction 1 2 3 4 5 9
b) Use of a formal evaluation system 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) Formal training and development programme 1 2 3 4 5 9
d) More innovative thinking by management 1 2 3 4 5 9
303
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree
Don't know / not
relevant
e)Unbiased faculty selection process 1 2 3 4 5 9
f) Smaller, team based work units 1 2 3 4 5 9
g) More co-ordination across departments 1 2 3 4 5 9
h)Change to a more service oriented culture 1 2 3 4 5 9
i)Rewards and recognition for teaching excellence 1 2 3 4 5 9
Q 53) Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statements below. (Circle the number that comes closest to your views.)
Strongly disagree
Mostly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Mostly agree
Strongly agree
Don't know / not
relevant
a) Knowing what I know now about the college I would apply to work here again. 1 2 3 4 5 9
b) I rarely think of applying to other organisations for a job. 1 2 3 4 5 9
c) I would recommend this college as a good employer 1 2 3 4 5 9
d) I am proud to be an employee at this college. 1 2 3 4 5 9
e) Overall, I intend to remain at the college 1 2 3 4 5 9
Q 54) How would you rate the organisation in fostering a high involvement culture? (Circle the number that best reflects your views.)